Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 24	July 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bajaj Group

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

Seems to read more like an advertisement due to the tone. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaseng55: In case of blatant promotion/advertising WP:CSD G11 is the way to go. I removed most of the advert, but they appear to pass WP:NCORP. There is a WP:COI involved, it seems. Kleuske (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - This article has no independent references, and so, as written, does not establish corporate notability. The conflict of interest is obvious; the originator has made no edits except to Bajaj-related articles. The issue here is whether to keep this article, but the article does not speak for itself. Draftification is an acceptable alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable company with single primary source, does not satisfy WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Keep. The article as presented is not representative of the scale of the company. For example, the Bajaj Auto company isn't mentioned as well as other companies in the group such as Bajaj Finserv Limited, Bajaj Electricals Ltd and Bajaj Holdings and Investment Ltd. There are also a number of references which have not been cited such as World Class in India: A Casebook of Companies in Transformation and Corporate Social Development: A Paradigm Shift. The article need a rewrite and would benefit from being moved to Drafts where it can be worked on. The topic is notable. HighKing 14:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Limata Nikiéma

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snafu Comics

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

Still gathering dust after three "no consensus" AFDs between 2006-2010 (ETA: The first was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIN The Incompetent Ninja). I did yet another WP:BEFORE and could find no reliable sources. Previous arguments to keep were based on the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award, but as AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applegeeks (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack (webcomic) (3rd nomination) prove, this is not a major enough award to meet WP:NWEB. No one else has proven that better sources exist. The current sources are a seemingly self-published book that only mentions Snafu for a sentence, and a Publisher's Weekly article that is not primarily about Snafu. The title turns up only 41 results on Google, and I was unable to find anything better. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – There's not much here. The Publisher's Weekly article is really solid. I think the Comix Talk review is also really good, though we've never properly established its status through WP:Webcomic sources. I do consider an award as a decent citation, and these three combined could make a decent article. I can't find anything about the MIT Press book, but a mention in there would also help. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the submission describes the Ito book as "seemingly self-published", this doesn't appear to be the case. It is published by MIT Press, a university press associated with MIT. The lead author, Mizuko Ito, is a cultural anthropologist and a Professor in Residence at the University of California. I think this submission would be stronger if first it was determined to what extent this subject is covered in that book. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist to solicit more opinions on this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HenryCrun15. Not only is the Ito source published by a university press and written by notable academic authors, it also discusses the subject in considerable depth, contrary to the noms claim of only passing mentions. See box 7.1 which runs over four pages starting on p. 311. That is all about the web comic and its founder, SnafuDave. SnafuDave is also discussed in other places in the book. There also appears to be non-trivial coverage in this book but I only have a snippet. SpinningSpark 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Maplestrip. The books are worth investigating as well. --Kiz o r 12:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Found sources → [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourcing found shows a clear WP:GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by MonFrontieres passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has SIGCOV in ABC and Fiji Sun, assuming that the latter is WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per MonFrontieres. Besides the sources, he found, I found other sources which shoe she is notable in Fiji: 8 and 9, among any other sources. In addition, she was a international capped player. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alisi Uluibatiki

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to be any decent coverage out there. Best thing I can find is a squad list mention in Fiji Sun which is way short of GNG's requirements. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unaisi Vatulili

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timaima Vuniyayawa

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there are too many WP:OR concerns with this content. I suggest adding any such content first to higher-level articles (Brahmin, Diet in Hinduism) to see if there is consensus for an OR-cmpliant treatment before spinning it out to its own article (WP:SS). Sandstein 08:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Brahmin diet

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

Synthesised topic, material for which does not actually exist. Sources invariably talk about diet in Hinduism, diet in Vedas etc. talk of "Brahmin diet" or "diet of the Brahmins" is not present in any sources given in the article and other academic sources I've checked. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep may be rename to Brahmin diet Passes WP:GNG. Dont agree at all with the nominator. Brahmin diet is a much debated and talked about topic in India as far as I know. Brahmin diet of the Brahmin is not the same as diet in Hinduism. I consider this a valid WP:CFORK of Brahmin and Hindu Diet to cover a specific topic. The diet of Brahmins also vary significantly according to geography, with massive differences in Bahmin diet of Kashmir vs Goa vs Kerala vs Tamil Nadu vs Assam. The Brahmin diet has also changed over the years. If you want to look for sources, check "Brahmin Diet" "Brahmin food habits" etc. Listing 2 below. --Venkat TL (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kohli, Atul; Singh, Prerna (4 January 2013). Routledge Handbook of Indian Politics. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-12274-4. Retrieved 16 July 2022.
Ambedkar, B. R. (2020). Beef, Brahmins, and Broken Men: An Annotated Critical Selection from the Untouchables. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-19585-0.

The sources do not discuss what is purported to be the scope this article. In the first source, a single mention of "Brahmin diet" is used to be refer simply to a vegetarian diet, also often called the "Vaishnav diet", adopted by many Hindus, not just Brahmins, for ethical-religious or social reasons, as the source itself points out. The source calls it so because it is discussing Sanskritisation—the prevalence of vegetarianism might be higher in some savarna castes for social reasons, and non-savarna castes may adopt vegetarianism to increase their social status. This points to the exact opposite of the existence of any so called "Brahmin diet". The second source as far as I can see does not uses the word "diet" only 7 times, non appearing near any "Brahmin". from the very little I know of Ambedkar's work, it is talking about the historical thesis that Brahminical Hinduism adopted vegetarianism and specially cattle reverence as an attack on Buddhism and avarna castes. This again does not point to any "Brahmin diet", but rather a transformation of all of Hinduism under Buddhist influence. a more sophisticated version of this thesis seems to have some acceptance among historians. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trykid you are now resorting to nitpicking. You do understand that "diet" is not the only synonym used in the English Language to discuss food habits. If you know this then why do you think that lack of the word "diet" means the source is not discussing the topic? For example "Karnataka Brahmin cuisine" is actually commonly known as the "Udupi cuisine", note the lack of the word Brahmin or diet, yet it is the same topic that this article under AfD is about. You do understand that There are tonnes of source in Hindi, Tamil, etc that discuss this topic. I have posted some more them below. The book by BR Ambedkar may not be accessible to you, I am linking 2 book reviews with excerpts to help you understand that this book is very much on the topic. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"An excerpt from 'Beef, Brahmins and Broken Men: An Annotated Critical Selection from The Untouchables', by B.R. Ambedkar, with an Introduction by Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd". The Hindu. 8 December 2019.
Ambedkar, B. R. "Read what Ambedkar wrote on why Brahmins started worshipping the cow and gave up eating beef". Scroll.in.
"Untouchability, The Dead Cow And The Brahmin". outlookindia.com/. 3 February 2022.
"The Big Fat Tamil-Brahmin Feast Fit For a King". NDTV Food.
"In India, caste system ensures you are what you eat". South China Morning Post. 26 July 2014.
"Pitru Paksha 2021 Shradh Bhoj Ke Niyam श्राद्ध में इस तरह कराएं ब्राह्मण भोजन, बरतें ये सावधानी". Navbharat Times (in Hindi).

Bairy, Ramesh (11 January 2013). Being Brahmin, Being Modern: Exploring the Lives of Caste Today. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-19819-9.
Shenoi, Maya; Nayak, Annapoorna (24 April 2016). Gowd Saraswat Brahmin's Cookbook. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-5239-4718-8.
Vijayalakshmi, R. (2015). Traditional Cuisine of Tamil Brahmins in Kerala. DC Life. ISBN 978-81-264-6426-5.
Varadarajan, Viji (2009). Classic Tamil Brahmin Cuisine: Pure Vegetarian South Indian Samayal. Orient Enterprises. ISBN 978-81-902876-4-7.
Jha, Dwijendra Narayan (2004). The Myth of the Holy Cow. Verso. ISBN 978-1-85984-424-3.
Chak, Annapurna (13 January 2015). Multiple Flavours of Kashmiri Pandit Cuisine. Partridge Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4828-3981-4.
Vinay, Dr (15 January 2021). Garuda Puran (in Hindi). Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd. ISBN 978-81-288-0701-5.
भार्गव, गोपाल (2011). मध्य प्रदेश की कला एवं संस्कृति (in Hindi). Gyan Publishing House. ISBN 978-81-7835-879-6.
Siddhāntaśāstrī, Phūlacandra (1963). Varṇa, jāti aura dharma (in Hindi). Bhāratīya Jñānapīṭha. ISBN 978-81-263-1325-9.
Agama Aur Tripitaka: Eka Anushilana (in Hindi). Concept Publishing Company.
V.D, Mahajan. Prachin Bharat Ka Itihas (Ancient India), Hindi Edition (in Hindi). S. Chand Publishing. ISBN 978-81-219-0879-5.
Kilpadi, Milind; Menon, Shailaja; Bhosale, Mohan; Padave, Priya; Chaudhari, Pallavi; Sharma, Neha (30 January 2019). Amchi Recipes: A Traditional Vegetarian Saraswat Brahmin Guide. Educreation Publishing.
Brien, Charmaine O' (15 December 2013). The Penguin Food Guide to India. Penguin UK. ISBN 978-93-5118-575-8.

There are two main of types of sources here, one dealing with the historical Ambedkarite argument that Brahmins were beef-eaters in the past, and only became vegetarian as part of an attack on Buddhism. This appropriately belongs in article covering the historical development of Hindu vegetarianism, perhaps as a part of Diet in Hinduism. Shepherd quotes Sathyamala in the introduction of the selections from the Untouchables—[i]t was left to Ambedkar, born of this ‘untouchable’ caste group, to show how it was that the food hierarchy among the Hindus, specifically beef consumption, provided the material basis of the unjust caste system. When we talk about the role of diet in justifying/solidifying the caste system as such, forking to Brahmin or Dalit diets does not help, we necessarily need to provide a holistic view, as Ambedkar's argument does. At best it's an unhelpful CFORK and at worst it's a POVFORK that presents only one side of the argument. Whether these arguments are WP:DUE and in what detail they ought to be covered in any given article (obviously they need to be fully covered in the article on book, but how much of it should go in diet in Hinduism?) would be a different question, but certainly they do not justify a "diet of the Brahmins" article based on this theory alone.
The second line is of caste cuisines. Any geographical of cultural group separated from others will develop a distinctive cuisine and other cultural elements. There are individual Brahmin groups with distinctive practices and cuisines—but as you point out, practices of Brahmins differ wildly across India. any distinctiveness, cuisines etc are better covered in the main article of these specific castes, or perhaps in something like "Cuisine of [specific caste group]" if it gets too large—unlike say, Tamil Brahmins specifically, Brahmins generally do not have a commonality acorss India to warrant such a "cuisine of Brahmins" article, perhaps some type of vegetarianism might be common, or not even that, since many Brahmins do eat non-vegetarian food, as you point out, and vegetarianism is followed by non-Brahmin Hindus in vast numbers.
As such, neither the sources that discuss Ambedkar's arguments and the role of diet in the caste system, and the sources that discuss specific food habits of some specific Brahmin groups do not justify the existence of this article. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trykid, I disagree with your overly broad (mis) categorization of these sources. I consider it a poor attempt at a straw man. I suggest others to check the sources and make their own conclusion. Brahmin diet is not the same as diet in Hinduism. Brahmins like to conflate the two, but it is not true, one is predominantly vegan while the latter is non vegan. Both are notable topics and deserve to be given due attention in separate articles.
You are free to create "Cuisine of [specific caste group]" but a page is needed to discuss the evolution of Brahmin diet and its variations across the geos, and this article History of Brahmin diet is the right place for it. It seems our opinions are vastly different so I will stop this discussion and let the sources speak for themselves. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, History, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India, Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. Venkat TL (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This article violates WP:OR and appears to be mixing up unrelated concepts or misrepresenting them in a wrong context per WP:SYNTH and if we properly represent the source then it would barely touch anything called "Brahmin diet". Therefore deletion is the best choice here. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete this article is OR, and per WP:SYNTH. If there is a dire need, any content can be added appropriately in Diet in Hinduism. Also per nomination. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wally West. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irey West

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

This article has no reliable sources to meet GNG. There appear to be no significant sources talking about the character, just minor pop culture filler articles. TTN (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. TTN (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wally West as an alternative to deletion, and as there appears to be no useful sourced information to be merged. Rhino131 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wally West: Irey West is not independently notable from her father. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge the relevant bits into Impulse (DC Comics). Dark knight 2149 07:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different redirect/merge targets mentioned, relisting to decide which would be most suitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wally West, the other potential target has also been redirected. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. Would not object to a merge if improved sourcing is possible. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Homes Realty

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

A previous instance of an article about this firm by a WP:COI contributor was deleted at AfD 2 years ago. I can't see the earlier article to compare it, but some of the comments in the previous AfD would not apply to this new instance. However inclusion in Inc 5000 lists and announcement coverage concerning a corporate headquarters in insufficient under WP:CORPDEPTH, as before, nor is a brief quote from the firm's founder among several others. While this is clearly a company going about its business, I am not seeing evidence that it has attained notability, so no reason to set aside the previous AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Alabama. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still nothing notable found, press-releases about people joining the firm or a company employee discussing where the most expensive homes are. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more reliable sources to verify the notability.Wackogobs (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is very puffery. 3 of the sources are on the claimed 300-400 new jobs that are low pickings for news stations, and only serve the now. In general, not anything to write home about. SWinxy (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not a listing service for realty companies. If the firm becomes the subject of a major scandal or something, we can revisit this decision. For now, this is a pretty clear delete case. A loose necktie (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kinisimere Vanua

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shaka Laka Boom Boom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kinshuk Vaidya

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

Most of the sources are just PR about birthday & other things. Fails WP:GNG. DIVINE 18:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. DIVINE 18:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shaka Laka Boom Boom: Fails notability as nominator noted, restore redirect to Shaka Laka Boom Boom and protect due to pushing from IP's and named editors. Ravensfire (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Article has no real content, but there does appear to be coverage in the Times of India. If someone wants to come back and create a real article someday, the redirect will allow them to do this easily enough. A loose necktie (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Bernstein

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

Was listed as a speedy. Article gives little context for notability but there is a reference in an older, published source. I believe a broader discussion is warranted before deletion. Uninvited Company 16:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7, This applies to any article about a real person...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant...This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.
~~There's nothing in the article or it's reference to indicate why its subject is important or significant.~~ – ².O.^Boxing 19:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jahaza; baby trout for me for overlooking that sentence. It satisfies my A7 query and WP:ANYBIO is met, so I'm not concerned with notability. – ².O.^Boxing
  - ♫Baby trout, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo.♫ Jahaza (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm half tempted to change my !vote to "speedy keep and nuke and salt" for putting that stooooopid song in my head!! ;P – ².O.^Boxing 21:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was in an encyclopedia. The claim of notability is this paragraph: "In the 1880s, while yet a student, he was received by the czar as a delegate from many Jewish families who petitioned for a restoration of their right of settlement outside the Pale of Settlement. He was instrumental in convincing the Russian leader to grant their request."--Jahaza (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significance asserted, and WP:ANYBIO source provided. As an aside, he was also the father of writers and linguists Sergei Ignatyevich Bernstein [ru] and Aleksandr Ivich [ru], while his wife Polina Bernstein [ru] and granddaughter Sofia Bogatyryova [ru] were notable linguists and translators. Spokoyni (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blueback (film)

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

Lacking significant coverage by independent sources, beyond the Hollywood Reporter article covering the announcement of the film, the production of the film has not received significant coverage from sources, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 15:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. 2pou (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL. The Film Creator (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as per WP:NFF. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fixed Future

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK: unable to find significant coverage in either English or Korean. Seems to have been written mostly by the author. Ploni (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Economics, Korea, and South Korea. Ploni (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: For whatever is worth, the author of the book denies being involved in writing the wikipedia article on the book. Al83tito (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Al83tito Where is that denial, out of curiosity? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: off Wikipedia; private inquiry. Al83tito (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see zero indication that the main contributors, who wrote this while they were students in Piotrus's course in 2019, have any conflict of interest. I tried to assess notability but unfortunately, I'm having a hard time parsing Korean-language sources. DanCherek (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My flagging of a possible COI was from the similarity of the main contributor's account name (User:Chaeyoung907) and the author of the book (Cho Young-tae). That said, if this was a student project then it seems very unlikely. –Ploni (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Despite a similar name, I can assure you that my student was not the book author :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article warrants some copyediting tags (for language and style), it passes WP:GNG. RS coverage of the book includes a review in major Korean newspaper (Kyunghyang Shinmun), and a review by an NGO ([8]). I am unsure if [9] is a reliable source, and I am having trouble verifying some other sources (MT from Korean to English is still meh), but I think the coverage found by the students show that minimum requirements for GNG/NBOOK (which I interpret as at least two reviews in reliable, independent sources) is met. The odds are there is more but students failed to find it (Korean academic reviews), so a Korean speaker may be able to help us more here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I would need to have a further look at the refs, but just looking quickly, I don't think there's much COI here. It's poorly written, and needs c/e, but I don't think it's ad like. VickKiang (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petro De Smedt

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

No evidence found that he is notable. Nothing in GNews, very few libraries hold copies of his work. GBooks has his works but nothing substantial about hjim in other books. He has written a lot, but has received very little attention for it[10]. Fram (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Language, and Belgium. Fram (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain this article.

Thank you, Fram, for your thoughtful comments on this article. It is a careful translation from the Esperanto Wikipedia, and the subject of the article is well known in Belgium and the Netherlands as well as among Esperantists worldwide. I have added an extract of a published review of one of his works, and I will be able to supply a few more if it will be helpful.

Kind regards, Objectivesea (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am Belgian, and he is not "well-known" here. Fram (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least among Esperantists he is legendary, and perhaps Wikipedia can facilitate making him better known to others as well. I have now expanded the bibliography of the works he either authored or edited. In answer to the suggestion that few libraries hold copies of his work, I have provided location references at the Esperanto Museum and Collection of Planned Languages in the Austrian National Library (ÖNB) — which has recently acquired, and is currently cataloguing, a substantial donation of books from the Universal Esperanto Association in Rotterdam. I think the article can be still further expanded as well. Kind regards, Objectivesea (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't here to help spread his legendary status. Being published, even widely published, also does not qualify someone as notable. That Fram is Belgian and has never heard of him isn't really relevant (uh, sorry, Fram), since any cultural group can have obscure subcultures that define the significance of their members in various ways, and WP:IDONTKNOWIT suggests that personal knowledge is not a good measure of [lack of] notability. But what we need is evidence that he has been the subject of OTHER people's writings and publications-- not analysis of his works, not evidence that lots of libraries hold his books, but articles in books and newspapers and magazines and journals (even Esperanto journals) that are about him specifically, that discuss his influence, his significance, his impact. For now, I do not see that here. A loose necktie (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was a reply to "the subject of the article is well known in Belgium and the Netherlands as well as among Esperantists worldwide", which (the first part about Belgium and the Netherlands) simply isn't true. He may be well-known in the Esperanto community in Belgium and the Netherlands, but not in general. That's not only an "I don't know him", but is based on the total lack of non-Esperanto sources from these two countries. Fram (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you know what I mean. A loose necktie (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources reliable from Belgian websites (I find a funeral card with his name, unsure if it's him), 5 hits in regular Google, he gets one mention in a book, I find a book he wrote. Nothing in JStor, hits on variants of his name in GScholar. I'm afraid he's not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zhanmadao. As an alternative to deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zanbatō

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish this as a notable topic. A lot of WP:OR making unreliable connections between concepts, which should be removed. Jontesta (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From what I can gather, "Zanbatō" is simply the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese Zhanmadao, even sharing the same Kanji, with the latter being the actual primary topic. So, at the very least, there does not appear to be the need for a split into separate articles, since the "Zanbatō" is simply the use of the real-life Zhanmadao in Japanese fiction. I am leaning towards delete due to there not seemingly being anything worth merging - the list of trivia should, of course, not be retained. And, the prose text only cites one source that actually mentions the "Zanbatō", which comes from a book that was published long after this article's creation and thus could potentially be the result of Citogenesis. Rorshacma (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorschacma. There is nothing WP:VERIFIABLE to preserve here. Would accept a merge or redirect to Zhanmadao if there are potential improvements coming. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Law and Chaos

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

A user generated essay that is entirely WP:OR. There are no reliable sources to confirm this as a topic or write anything significant about it, which means this article cannot meet most policies and guidelines, including WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Jontesta (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. OR is a major concern. That said, the topic may be notable (see ex. this book). Weakly leaning towards WP:TNT due to OR concerns, however. I was going to ping editors active in recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormbringer but after re-reading a certain (first) comment there I've lost any motivation, someone who cares more can do so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the article, but pinging editors from that previous AFD for comment here: User:Artw, User:Rorshacma, User:Jclemens, User:Necrothesp, User:LEvalyn, User:Julle. BOZ (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...is entirely WP:OR. There are no reliable sources to confirm this as a topic or write anything significant about it... Another deletion rationale by Jontesta which has no basis in reality. We have one secondary source already in the article which discusses the topic, showing both the claims "entirely WP:OR" and "no reliable sources to confirm this as a topic" as false on a quick glance. A bit of WP:BEFORE search shows, in addition to the find by Piotrus: "Fractal Fantasies of Transformation" links the concept from Moorcock to scientific notions, as well as John Milton and William Blake; the book Chaos Ethics discusses the concept in multiple places; Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy discusses the D&D side of things specifically on pages 36-37 and more generally in the whole essay from 29-47. So plenty to fullfill the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NOT, even though the list of existing sources is far from complete. I think both WP:V and WP:OR are very minor problems, as most of the as yet unreferenced content refers to the primary sources, it is very likely most content could be verified in that way. All that said, I think the article currently has significant problems: For such a broadly titled subject it focusses too much on the concept within Moorcocks works. And it has way too much plot summary of those works. All that could be solved with trimming, sourcing, and introducing more analysis based on those secondary sources which do exist. I think this is no case where WP:TNT applies, as in my view the referenced content, as well as limited plot summary, would be kept in "good" article on this topic. Daranios (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios The problem is the lack of footnotes. With those kind of topics, WP:FANCRUFTy WP:OR is common enough it's difficult to WP:AGF that the author "just forgot to add footnotes" (note: the original version of this essay, not changed much since 2006, had no references at all). PS. For best practices, I'd like to see the nom (Jontesta) confirm that they couldn't find references fo the content in the article. I think our findins strongly suggest the topic is notable, but nobody has debunked that this may be OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The lack of footnotes obviously is not best practice. But one does not have to assume that the author "just forgot to add footnotes", either. I have no problem to assume in good faith that the author knew what they were doing when the article was created until proven otherwise, as I think doing plot summary without footnotes would have been common practice back then. E.g. WP:ALLPLOT was not yet written at that point. Actually looking into when a lack of footnotes would be an argument for deletion, I have only seen reason no 7. of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy apply: Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. If the the nominator Jontesta were to do such a search describe their findings, that would indeed be helpful. Assuming for a moment that such "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" would actually show that the unreference sections could not be verified, that still would be no reason to delete the whole article: If we were to keep only the referenced parts, we would still have a decent stub on the topic. And we already know now that there are secondary sources out there which would allow to expand such a hypothetical stub into a full article in the future. Daranios (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In good faith, the author tried their best, but the resulting piece is likely WP:OR that clearly violates WP:V. Now that the lack of references has been called out, this needs verification or cutting down to size, removing all referenced content. Which, I am afraid, means not even a single sentence would remain, would it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the plot summary content should be trimmed, but not removed entirely. clearly violates WP:V would mean that the missing references could neither be found in secondary nor primary sources. That could be decided only by a person who knows the relevant primary sources quite well, or has done the thorough attempts to find reliable sources which is the phrasing in the policy. And what would remain if one would remove all un-referenced content? The referenced content! I've allowed myself the fun to roughly count, and get to ca. 350 words of referenced content, which is more than one common threshold for being considered a stub already. Daranios (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This isn't written from reliable third party sources and fails WP:GNG. At times it looks like it's talking about the fiction of Michael Moorcock, and other times it drifts into other fiction that deals with chaos (which is a lot of fiction), making WP:SYNTH connections that aren't implied by the sources. But I see the source from Piotrus that could at least expand Multiverse (Michael Moorcock) (which is also in bad shape). Would not object to a merge or redirect but right now there is nothing to WP:PRESERVE here. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The influence of Moorcock's work on D&D, Warhammer, Babylon 5 and chaos magic are all attested in secondary sources, so no WP:SYNTH there. Not so sure about Magic and Mayhem, though. Daranios (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met per the sources already discussed, so the fact that it could be written less about specific plot points is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. This is not limited to Moorcock; Babylon 5 based its central conflict around these same concepts. If anything, there's far more room to include semi-related topics from searches like this. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Argyably it's a large philosophical concept, but here the article is 100% about Moorcock. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, both the the broader topic of Law and Chaos in fiction and the narrower of Law and Chaos in Moorcock's work influences have enough secondary source to establish notability. It can be decided outside the deletion discussion which one this article should cover in the end. Daranios (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty has been written about the concept in relation to fantasy literature and gaming, easily enough to satisfy WP:GNG. However, I think the article should be repurposed to cover the concept in general and not just Moorcock's take on it, hugely influential though that may be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Notability requires verifiable evidence, and I don't see evidence that Law and chaos in fiction would be an article that has WP:SIGCOV. TV Tropes is not a reliable source and I am unconvinced that this wouldn't just lead to many of the same issues with the current article, which warrants deletion in its current form. Jontesta (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jontesta: Upon a closer look it seems to me that Moorcock's conception of Law and Chaos appears in so many secondary sources that it does not make sense to write a Law and chaos in fiction article divorced from what we have here - at least if we keep to the term "law and chaos" and don't expand to include "Order and chaos in fiction" and "Chaos in fiction". That said, what do you say to the evidence of all the secondary sources already presented, which discuss Moorcock's Law and Chaos and do link his conception to other literature? Additional ones would be here (pp. 55-57), here (p. 239) and here (short but enlightening comment p. 130). Daranios (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Any chance you could try to rewrite this or start a new article on the broader concept reusing parts of this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Nope, sorry, someone else should tackle this. I have hardly started with the last such "job" I've been offered. Daranios (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I agree with Necrothesp that the concept of law and chaos as a whole, and its representation in fiction, definitely is an article that should be quite possible. However, this article just isn't it - its almost entirely just overly detailed, unsourced, in-universe plot summaries of the works of Michael Moorcock specifically. As stated multiple times above, this is a philosophical concept that goes far beyond the works of a single author, and having this current article be a massive fan-wiki style essay on that one author's work just gives a completely unbalanced view of the subject, and is a case of WP:TNT being the far preferable solution to leaving it as it is. I would probably be fine with keeping it if nearly all of the current material was removed, leaving just the bit of sourced material in the lead on Moorcock's work and the sourced material in the "Cultural influences" as a stub. But, the current article should definitely not be kept in its current form. Rorshacma (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selective merge to Michael Moorcock. The in-universe content is OR and WP:NOTPLOT. The section about influences on other works is better placed in the writer's article, if it is to be retained. Sandstein 11:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - The current content seems like it would hinder efforts to work this into something that meets GNG. Even if the core topic may be notable, there is no point in keeping OR indefinitely until someone decides to work on it. TTN (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Libertarian Party (United States)#History. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Accord

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

Thoroughly fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH. Sourced entirely by WP:PRIMARY and non-WP:RS-compliant sources. After combing through multiple search engines (per WP:BEFORE), I found no secondary RS significant coverage of the subject whatsoever. Sal2100 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, and Politics. Sal2100 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Libertarian Party (United States)#History: Doesn't seem to be independently notable of the party's history, but significant enough to that particular topic to warrant a mention in the primary article. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be a viable alternative to deletion. There's also Factions in the Libertarian Party (United States), which would also be a suitable page to merge/redirect to. I'm not sure which would be the more appropriate option, but either would be fine by me. Sal2100 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The two "keep" opinions assert notability, but do not engage with the "delete" side's source analysis, or indicate which sources exactly confer notability on the subject. Sandstein 11:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adenekan Mayowa

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

BLP of a pr practitioner who, unsurprisingly, manages to get plenty of coverage for himself. He won the Ogun State “blogger of the year” award five years in a row. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is it concern of Wikipedia that how and at what position any subject got themselves into press? All that we should worry about is to see whether they have "significant coverage in reliable and independent sources" or not. Insight 3 (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to verify the mentions are actually both indepdent and in reliable sources, and substantial. Just because someones name appears in the press a lot does not mean we need an article for them. We also have some not provisions. I am not sure about this case, but I am just pointing out that lots of sources does not in all cases force an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that his name just appears in the press, the cited sources are directly and mainly about him, granting a significant coverage in his favor. Insight 3 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep The subject of this article is notable. Do an unbiased independent Google search on the phrase Mayowa Adenekan. Aso2018 (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They’re pr placed pieces, interviews or cut and pastes of his own press releases. They are not independent and in depth coverage. Yes we absolutely care how people get themselves into the press. If they pay for coverage or use their positions to get adulatory pieces from client journalists, those are useless for demonstrating notability p. “He’s in the papers a lot” doesn’t equate to notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"They’re pr placed pieces, interviews or cut and pastes of his own press releases" ... Can this be demonstrated or we just assume things? Insight 3 (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well for example, refs 5 and 6 are identical, meaning two journalists just cut and pasted the same press release from the subject’s office. Not independent coverage at all. Likewise refs 8 and 9 are identical cut and paste jobs from his own pr. You can’t base a Wikipedia article on this kind of rubbish. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of sources, but the evidence points to paid promotion rather than genuine independent coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What I see from the last two input is that promotional content and links should be removed from the article. Mccapra and KH-1, I guess you know the article can be improved instead of outright delete? Aso2018 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be improved? Where is the in depth coverage in independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has been reduced to a stub and open for expansion. Aso2018 (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it’s not a stub at all. It barely changed and - Where is the in depth coverage in independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We encourage you to use reliable, neutral and reliable third-party sources to expand the article. I've tried to find mentions of him in the New York Times for example, and found none. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see some secondary and independent sources. Keep the article, and add an appropriate maintenance tag. Ajalaja (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more round to analyze on the sources in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 22:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A whole of three pages in Google, most are press releases. He works in PR and this is very much a PR exercise in self-promotion. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for your contribution but this discussion was relisted to analyze on the sources in the article.: We are not analyzing Google result. The article right now has a very few sources and it is a stub.Ajalaja (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD we discuss all the sources anyone can find, not just those already in the article. Mccapra (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article appear to be the same quality. Again, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Do we have Nigerian Wikipedia Admins? Does Wikipedia have a diversity and inclusion policy? It looks like the editors commenting and voting does not understand the situation in Nigeria and Africa? Can we get a Nigerian or African admin to vote/comment on this article?

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilana Lashley

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sourcing adds up to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: the sourcing Which are you referring to? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tabique Lockhart

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olujede Bridgewater

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the consensus reached in this discussion. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cady Chin See Chong

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and South America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Found sources (or coverage) → [11][12][13]--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both the first and second source are not independent of the source (heavily include quotes from the subject) and thus fail GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources posted by User:MonFrontieres. Furthermore, User:Sportsfan 1234 is grasping at straws by claiming these sources are not independent because they "heavily include" quotes of the subject. They were posted by STVS (a Suriname television station), and the Suriname Herald (a news publication). Neither are affiliated with the subject player. Frank Anchor 16:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I find no sources other than simple confirmations of games she's played. The first source found by MonFrontieres, is the best/most comprehensive. Second one isn't much and the third appears to be an interview on TV, but I don't speak Dutch so can't confirm. Very weak keep based on these sources. One really good, one half good and one meh source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found these additional sources which show she is notable in Suriname: 4, 5, and 6. In addition, she is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SNC and Key News are enough for GNG and some of the others above help cement it. GNG is not a ridiculously high bar, we're not looking for War and Peace, just that the subject is addressed directly and in detail by independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Song

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

Won one season of Big Brother in 2003 and nothing since then… is winning a reality television series two decades ago sufficient to establish notability? Bgsu98 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and New York. Bgsu98 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AFD for this article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie McGee ~ GB fan 20:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Andrevan@ 21:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paile

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Rojas (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duck crossing

AfDs for this article:

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

Beyond one road sign in the BBC News article from 2004, I can't actually find any evidence that a 'duck crossing' itself exists as a form of legal traffic crossing device other than the odd sign here and there   Kadzi   (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not significant enough to warrant a standalone article. I was going to say merge this to Deer crossing or similar, but as far as I can tell, there are no pages for wildlife crossing signs, with Wildlife crossing being an unrelated topic. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless significant coverage actually exists about duck crossings (or such crossings in general), this fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True Ingredients

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

Non notable band, the article makes various grandiose statements which aren't substantiated eg. 'the band has played gigs all over the UK as well as in many other European countries alongside a number of high-profile artists such as DJ Vadim, Finley Quaye, Kele Le Roc, Jungle Brothers, Aquasky, Foreign Beggars, High Contrast, Bugz in the Attic, and The Gap Band'.

The references consist mostly of non independent youtube videos and the entire article is written in a slightly promotional tone.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : If they toured other countries and it can be verified, then it meets WP:NMUSIC, but I cannot verify of any of that info.Zeddedm (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Amazons (DC Comics). (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drusilla (DC Comics)

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

This comic book character is too minor to require an individual article per our notability guidelines. The character shares her name with a character from the Wonder Woman TV series, but there are no sources establishing an actual connection, so we have no reason to believe the comic character inspired the TV series character. And even if such a connection was sourced/established, this article remains unnecessary. — TAnthony^Talk 18:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there are many links to this article solely because it is included in the template {{Wonder Woman}}.— TAnthony^Talk 19:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Amazons (DC Comics) where the character, publication history, and appearance in the tv show can be mentioned. Don't see anything that would say this character passes GNG. Rhino131 (talk)
Redirect to Amazons (DC Comics): Drusilla is not meaningfully discussed in any reliable sources. However, the television character is briefly mentioned in the main article on her people. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amazons (DC Comics) - fails WP:GNG. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per above. Plot summary, no evidence of any significance or sourcing supporting a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per above. Not enough sources to meet the WP:GNG or verify something that is WP:NOTPLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assassins in popular culture

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

Poorly referenced "a list of depictions of the historical Assassins in later literature and modern popular culture", i.e. this is the usual list of media that mention the Order of Assassins. With trivia such as "MMORPGs have Assassins in them, referred in as a job or class", or "Corvo Attano from Dishonored is an assassin getting revenge on the people who conspired against him and framed him for murder", this mess fails WP:TRIVIA/WP:IPC, WP:NLIST, WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR. Further reading: WP:NOTTVTROPES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Crime, Popular culture, Lists, and Middle East. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless article with no clear topic— the supposed subject is oddly specific trivia while “assassins” in general are an extremely common topic in popular culture. Dronebogus (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd imagine there's potential for some form of discussion on fictional interpretations of assassins, but this is not that topic. This is simply a trivial collection of minor details that cannot be improved in any capacity. It should be deleted, and someone should explore actual analysis of the topic in the main article if they have interest. TTN (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The assassin is a basic stock character in fiction. Therefore, a list of them is inherently too broad to be anything other than an indiscriminate collection of information. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another TV Tropes style list, simply listing times something appeared or was mentioned in a piece of pop culture without any meaningful discussion on the topic or any actual sources that do anything more than verify certain specific examples. Rorshacma (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:UNVERIFIABLE, and otherwise not WP:NOTABLE. Severely lacking in sources. Even if some were found, this would need to be reconstructed without any of the WP:OR, and would be a completely different article. Jontesta (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet the notability guidelines but it lacks sources. TheresDifferentTime (communication • contributions) 18:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wu number

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

Fails WP:GNG. Ref 1 is a bachelor's thesis. Ref 2 is a conference paper by Mr. Wu [14]. The paper has been cited only three times, all in publications co-authored by Mr. Wu [15].

I searched Google Scholar and found various references to unrelated people. Wu classes are named after Wu Wenjun. The Gau-Wu number is named after Hwa-Long Gau and Pei Yuan Wu. The Tsai–Wu failure criterion is named after Stephen W. Tsai [de; pt] and Edward M. Wu [de]. Cheers, gnu 57 15:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching Google scholar found nothing better. Inadequate sourcing to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Asia Song Contest

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted in 2016 and was subsequently recreated. However, nothing has changed since its initial deletion. This is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL as not only did this event not materialize, the page has existed for years as just a collection of speculation. Grk1011 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Asia. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Complete non-event that doesn't provide any useful information and that definitely violates WP:CRYSTAL. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this point there are nothing to indicate notability. Nor any chance of this happening anytime soon.BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL at all because all info about what was planned is sourced. There are quite a few sources listed in the article, although I'm not sure if it's enough to establish notability. If the article is similar enough to the previously deleted one then it should simply be speedily deleted per WP:G4. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The initial deletion was in 2016 and many of the refs in the current article are from 2017 and later. I can't see the deleted page as a non-admin, but assumed the refs were enough evidence of it being sufficiently different. Grk1011 (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as it never materialized per WP:CRYSTAL. Zeddedm (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love coupon

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

Non-notable concept, flimsy sourcing; only a single book, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Household Solutions" mentions this, and only in a single short paragraph. The samhsa.gov don't specifically mention "love coupons." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never thought an Idiots Guide would be used for sourcing, but here we are. Non-notable, yes it exists, but nothing needing an article here. Passing mentions or not much of anything found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Abstract concept, delete   Kadzi   (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of people who awoke from a coma. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Shapiro

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

The article currently has five references:

1 is a news article from the time.
2 is a blog.
3 is about Awakenings, a related case referenced in the lead, but with no coverage of Shapiro.
4 is a video of unclear relation
5 appears to be a transcript or description of a church service or similar.

A BEFORE search shows other articles that mention Shapiro and the record in passing e.g. The Guardian, but never expands on Shapiro's life in detail. The movie Forever Life (1998 film) does appear to have been inspired by Shapiro, but I am not convinced it is notable itself, let alone that notability is inherited to Shapiro.

Overall, this is at best BLP1E for news coverage at the time Shapiro woke up, but does not meet GNG. — Bilorv (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Canada. — Bilorv (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people who awoke from a coma where it already is and where it belongs. Needs the other entries for context and not enough refs to stand on its own.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding rsjaffe's redirect vote QuietHere (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned by rsjaffe, she's already listed in List of people who awoke from a coma, and I think that's enough. PK T(alk) 18:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people who awoke from a coma as noted above. This is one person who is known by a very unfortunate single event, and while a movie was made based on this, I don't think that makes the person more notable. If she really was the "longest a person has been in a coma like state and woken up", then that may imply some degree of unusual notability, but the sourcing doesn't seem to support this or detail their life sufficiently that BLP1E becomes irrelevant. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that this passes WP:MUSICBIO. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Mar

AfDs for this article:

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

sourced almost entirely to blackhat SEO, non rs, blatantly unreliable spammy nonsense and social media. Despite the claims, she woefully fails WP:NMUSIC PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the charted single makes her notable, but the there is too much puffery in sources to find much to support notability, discussing who she's dating or dissing at this moment. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO#C2. I've taken out some of the worst puffery/unsourced stuff, but it needs a proper copyedit.--Laun chba ller 14:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page was originally a bit filled but was correctly sourced, since then the page has been cut down by other users who have made it "less unreliable and spammy" which makes the page now more notable and with correct reliable sources. Like mentioned it passes WP:MUSICBIO#C2 (in two national charts) which makes it notable and it adds to the site as she is an upcoming artist (this is being proven by her "stay the night" song reaching charts and doing well commercially), she is a big name amongst fans of the UK YouTube scene due to her involvement with the sidemen, KSI and that group which again makes her more than notable. RedactedUser300 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although this satisfies the SNG (WP:MUSICBIO#C2), as stated above, significant coverage for GNG is still pretty sparse and I didn't find any other independent reliable sources not already included. ComplexRational (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO because of charting tracks. Zeddedm (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makhnovshchina (disambiguation)

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

This appears to be an unnecessary disambiguation. "Makhnovshchina", referring to the Makhnovist movement, has its own article. The Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine were known as the "Makhnovtsi" or "Makhnovists", rather than "Makhnovshchina", which referred to the wider movement. The article for "Makhnovism" doesn't even exist, nor are there any substantial sources that refer to a tendency known as "Makhnovism".

As such, I propose this disambiguation page be deleted, as there's no real ambiguity to clarify. Grnrchst (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Disambiguations, and Ukraine. Grnrchst (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The army article is linked in the first paragraph of the actual article on Makhnovshchina anyway. The third title, Makhnovism, is a redirect, and doesn’t belong in the list anyway, and I have moved it to a new “See also” section.[16] (It’s linked in the lead line anyway.) —Michael Z. 17:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be no need for the page as the term is very specific. The tangents are covered as noted above by Michael Z. Nestor Makhno is also clearly identified in the article's lead. --16:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Liberia

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally, unsourced since its creation in 2004, ends for some reason in 1974, less than 1 pageview per day so not of great interest to our readers also. Same issues as with the many dozens of similar articles already deleted. Fram (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Africa. Fram (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have articles such as List of people on the postage stamps of the United States and List of people on the postage stamps of India. Even if people are not reading the article on Liberia's stamps, we cannot delete articles just because they are low-traffic. And we certainly cannot start deciding which countries are more notable than others, and only keeping the lists of certain countries. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are sources for these countries, but not for Liberia, then we can very well decide to keep an article for one country and not for another. The eletion reason is WP:LISTN, the article is unsourced and while individual entries could be sources, there are no sources for the group topic, for "people on postage stamps of Liberia". The sorry state of the article is just additional information, when the first of these AfDs happened some people complained that people wanted these lists (no, not really), or that we need to give time, or... There have been many, many deletions of such articles, often by Prod, but also by AfD, see here. Such deletion happened for Italy, the Philippines, Germany, ... so it's not as if only smallish or third world countries get their article deleted. Fram (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found sources for Liberia. I think it's unlikely that there are not sources for every country, given the meticulousness of stamp collectors. Based on that, my !vote stands, but reasonable minds can differ. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are about the subject though. The first[17] is a general stamp catalogue of Liberia, as is the second; the third[18] isn't even that much, and the last[19] is a primary source and again just a stamp catalogue. None are about people on postage stamps of liberia, none discuss that topic, you just can extract this information just like you could create a list of all green and black stamps of Liberia, or all 5 cents stamps of Liberia, or all watermarked stamps of Liberia. Fram (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy basis that a list needs an outside source discussing the topic, and LISTN does not require that. We have articles like List of flags by color combination which are far more ridiculous. A list of people on a certain country's stamps is interesting and informative, which is what WP is all about. I think a lot of lists here are silly, and I don't see any real basis for deleting this one outside of an aversion to stamp articles (which is fair, stamps are strange). ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not have a level of sourcing to meet list requirements. I doubt we do in the other cases mentioned, but since we need to find enough sourcing for an specific topic to justify a list, that other topics may or may not have enough sourcing to justify a list is not grounds to have a list here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not another postage stamps list article. Clearly fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN says that the list topic being discussed as a group is "One accepted reason" for notability. It is by no means the only reason. LISTN goes on to say: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists". A list of people on Liberian stamps qualifies as a cross-categorization of stamps, so saying it fails LISTN is disingenuous and misleading. Not liking stamps lists is not a valid reason for deletion. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I see claiming that this fails WP:LISTN as less disingenuous than stating "I found sources for Liberia" as a reply to "there are no sources for the group topic, for "people on postage stamps of Liberia". " when it turns out that none of these sources were actually about that topic. YMMV, but I would first look at your own role and statements here before starting to attack others. And a cross-categorization of non-notable subjects (as most of these individual stamps aren't notable) is not in any way better than a listification of a non-notable group subject. "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" is listed in WP:NOT, which is policy. Fram (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to make personal attacks. My use of "disingenuous" was a poor choice, I meant it only to mean 'misleading'. And relying on the NLIST guideline is misleading since it does not address the topic of this discussion and it does not require any list to have a source establishing that the 'group' is notable. And that's it, I will stop before I say something else poorly. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ‡ El cid, el campeador .GorgonaJS (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails LISTN, there appears to be no SIGCOV in RS on the phenomenon of people being portrayed on Liberian stamps. The primary objection to deleting this article appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Why should we have an article/list on this subject if no RS does? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As an indiscriminant list. I randomly picked Jehudi Ashmun to see if there was a source provided there but there is no mention at all. I would think some mention (sourced) would be important on individual articles before making a list of names (such as Robert Goodloe Harper), that also does not include mention. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banter Media

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

Note - please also see AfD on Ex Cathedra (film) and Liam Andrew Wright. This AFD company is linked to the two above as a production company for the film, and the founder being Liam Andrew Wright with this article being part of a trifecta of non notable pages.

This company along with the other pages fails the gng with non reliable sources which consist mostly of youtube and websites affiliated to Banter Media. and pretty much 0 coverage   Kadzi   (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also - please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_13#Banter_Records , this has essentially been discussed here also.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I accept this company is not notable if the association with Ex Cathedra does not suffice. However, I disagree with the removal of Liam Andrew Wright and Ex Cathedra 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in previous replies, several sources have been lost to time as the era of notability was around 2010. I have led a quieter life since then but do not believe User:Dr. Kadzi assessment is accurate and believe there is, for some reason, a desire to remove all reference to me. I feel there is a bias against the crypto industry (in which I now work) from User:Dr. Kadzi and would like to request his AFD requests are denied to preserve the history of the internet and the work I, and countless others, have been a part of for over a decade. 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CRG (kart manufacturer)

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

This article was created in 2004, and - as far as I can see - about two years before the "notability" policies and guidelines were developed. In 2022, were an article of this type to be created via the AFC process, it would be declined as relying too much on primary sources (see https://kartcrg.com/about/?lang=en for an example) without WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. (I also note that throughout this article's history, it has included many manifestly spurious assertions.) In 2022, I would assert that this article fails any number of criteria for inclusion as an article following any number criteria including but not limited to WP:CORPDEPTH, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I'm trying to understand the rationale behind this nomination but I simply can't. I can see WP:SIGCOV is hard to find as their name is a common acronym (as we can tell by the disambiguaton page), but the truth is CRG is one of the largest kart manufacturers and exporters in the world (with independent coverage to back this up, to the extent that even the kart racing article recognises them as such), having won the Karting World Championship 32 times and the CIK-FIA Karting European Championship 25 times. I'd say the page itself is quite poor, although not to the degree where WP:TNT could be considered. The information is good, but the writing and linking is improvable. The tables on all the stuff they've won are unnecessary too and poorly formatted. But other than that, it meets GNG without much problem. [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] and so many more independent sources exist, all referring to CRG as one of the leading kart manufacturers in the world. I don't think WP:MOTOR has a proper guideline for what makes a kart manufacturer notable, but in the absence of it: articles exist of other karting giants like Rotax, Birel, Tony Kart, Kosmic Kart or IAME, and also of several companies far less important than CRG... So my vote is clear. MSport1005 (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reasons as explained by MSport1005 (talk). DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

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

Fails WP:ORG, no WP:RS, out of 7 refs two are PRIMARY, 1 dead link, rest only passing mention. The Book ref has a paragraph about the ORG. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep I added some more recent coverage, but it's not great. Mostly niche coverage in trucking publications, and tied to the organization's press releases. Not a very sexy group, but they have been around for a while and seem to have a large and influential membership. Its safety events are reported every year in trucking news media. These new stories are all minor and about the group's activities and not itself, but show their influence in the industry. Could also be a merge prospect to Automotive safety#Vehicle programs. No opposition if that's consensus. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changed vote after all the sources I identified with state and federal traffic safety agencies. TechnoTalk (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check WP:ORG and ask yourself, if this article meets the criteria? _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sticking with the weak keep. There's a lot of coverage of the group's activities in transportation publications [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], etc. It would certainly be better if there was more coverage of the group's history and executive team. WP:ORG talks about audience, saying attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability I think that's the crux. Are these trucking publications limited interest and circulation? I'm not a trucker and don't really know, so I'm leaning on the side of keep. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and latest sources brought to this board are all press releases, so do not contribute to establishing notability. Slywriter (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. The coverage must be there. scope_creep^Talk 18:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no press releases in this article. There's nothing that says a press release can't be used to generate related coverage. That's why they exist. All the sources are in independent reliable third party sources, the very definition of WP:NCORP. Nonetheless, to satisfy Scope and the others, I just did another search, and found that public safety officials in every state and Canada, including Arizona, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Utah, New York, California, and Canada, all either discuss CVSA guidelines or link to the CSVA website as resources. Indeed the New York source specifically says Inspectors will follow an inspection procedure established by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) to inspect the driver and vehicle. These procedures are used throughout North America. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) credits the CVSA with helping establish FMCSA's driver certification processes. The entire chapter 7 of the Washington State Commercial Vehicle Guide is about CVSA]. States even issue CVSA decals for trucks that pass inspections. See Indiana's Commercial Vehicle Guidebook. There's also a National Library of Medicine paper studying the association's safety criteria. You can do a similar WP:BEFORE search using the phrase "commercial vehicle safety alliance gov" to find much more along these lines, after page 3. None of that is PR and certainly isn't traditional media coverage, but it shows the group's notability and influence within vehicle safety organizations. There's no doubt that this is useful information for Wikipedia's readers. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are far more sources than just press releases to pass WP:NCORP. Aside from links above provided by TechnoTalk there are many more. A now very large organization that not only focuses on truck safety in all 50 states (example [42]), Canada, and Mexico, they bring awareness to human trafficking as part of the Combating Human Trafficking In Commercial Vehicles Act (Public Law 115-99—JAN. 3, 2018). Over 13,000 inspectors participate in DOT Week or DOT Blitz. The CVSA is also home to North American Fatigue Management Program (NAFMP). The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) tried to get the annual event postponed during the pandemic. States involved with CVSA: Nebraska, Michigan, Louisiana (KNOE 8 News), Texas, and on-and-on. The CVSA provides commercial brake adjustment limits for braking assemblies (Brake systems), and other sources. 46 jurisdictions in the US and Canada were involved in the 2022 CVSA inspections. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this locality does not meet either GEOLAND or otherwise the GNG. My feeling is also that mentioning it in a "parent" article would be UNDUE and that redirecting isn't needed, however that is somewhat outside of the scope of an AfD close. firefly ( t · c ) 16:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Park, Indiana

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

Taking this one to AFD as searching is a bit more difficult than normal. While "Walker Park" is apparently a common name for municipal parks in Indiana (there appears to be one in the South Bend area and another out by Evansville), this specific location appears to be about this set of vacation homes. Vacation homes don't meet WP:GEOLAND and I haven't turned up anything that would indicate this specific spot meets WP:GNG, so taking here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> Tippecanoe Township, Kosciusko County, Indiana, where it is listed. Djflem (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a generic non-notable subdivision, it shouldn't even be mentioned on the township page. Reywas92^Talk 13:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:GEOLAND: 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. Djflem (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also the consideration of WP:UNDUE - GEOLAND doesn't require us to mention a subject if mentioning it would be undue detail in the higher-scale article. Through my research into the Indiana places, I've determined that there's frankly so many of these little housing developments/resort homes/etc that there simply isn't a way to mention them all in a township or county article without providing grossly undue weight, even in list form. Hog Farm _Talk 22:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The stated policy has noting to do with the above so that's a big stretch. What are the points of view being presented and how are they not balanced in their presentation, when actually, there no point of view being presented? Geoland doesn't say that at all either. Djflem (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're at a bit of cross purposes - I'm arguing that a set of vacation homes isn't due weight to mention in the township article due to the sheer number of these things, while your statement above seems to be explicitly arguing for inclusion of this material citing GEOLAND? Hog Farm _Talk 23:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that there are guidelines. Using UNDUE incorrectly and fudging on NGEO because it's inconvenient are not really AfD arguments. Djflem (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- There are infinite places on the planet, we are not obligated to mention every non-notable housing development whose only sources are database entries. We have no information to include beyond its existence as a few nondescript streets of houses like the subdivision I grew up in – that's not what Wikipedia is for. There are dozens more such subdivisions both in unincorporated Kosciusko County and nearby incorporated Warsaw, and this theory would just clutter our pages with crap. Reywas92^Talk 03:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ideas about Wikipedia is for and crap, but this is an AfD discussion not an opinion poll or place to share irrelevant user biographic details Djflem (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too grew up in a housing development in the United States! Dear reader, where did you grow up? :) --Doncram (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I considered this to be without any clear consensus, especially after 3 week period of no activity, however at the nominator's request, I have reverted to allow an explicit outcome from one of those expressed above to be enacted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, non-legally-recognized subdivision. Mentioning at the township level would indeed be UNDUE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a non-notable, run-of-the-mill housing subdivision. Redirecting to the township article is not recommended. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. See now Draft:Teppei Miwa. Sandstein 09:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teppei Miwa

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

Undersourced article packed with redlinked events, shows a gymnast who although has competed at national level has never won anything at national level. Lacks SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSPERSON. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has a WP:BEFORE been conducted using the Japanese language? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reasonable request? This is enwiki. This article links to NO Japanese language article. The English article is being judged, during New Page Patrol, 'as found'. You get an English Google and an evaluation of the sources presented as part of the free deal. You want more than that, you have to buy a subscription. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede." JTtheOG (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: Yes. you are required to do WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article, regardless of which language the sources may be in. Here are a few sources I found with a brief search of "三輪哲平体操競技" (the first part is his name, the second part is "artistic gymnastics"):

Nikkan Sports (2017)
Nikkan Sports (2017)
Nikkan Sports (2018)
Nikkei (2019, discussion of him as part of a team)
Chunichi News (2021)
Juntendo University News (2021)
Nikkan Sports (2022)
Yahoo! Japan News (2022)
Sponichi News (2022)
Nikkei (2022)

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more possible sources out there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is required to perform BEFORE, neither on the AfD page where BEFORE resides (which is not a policy or guideline) nor on any of the relevant policy or guideline pages. JoelleJay (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NGYMNAST. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Teppei Miwa won a silver and a bronze at the 2018 Voronin Cup, which applies to WP:NGYMNAST criteria: Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked for socking in this AfD JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 2018 Voronin Cup results. All they lack is any mention of Miwa. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source usually separates men and women's results. With that being said an elite competition is defined as "any competition with considerable international WP:GNG coverage between at least eight notable athletes (examples of such competitions include: Pan American Games, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, European Championships, and Pacific Rim Championships)." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source is fixed. There were more than 8 notable athletes participated in the events, i.e. Artur Davtyan, Dmitrii Lankin, Ivan Stretovich, Hu Xuwei, Kakuto Murayama, Yahor Sharamkou, Ivan Stretovich, Matvei Petrov... NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 Voronin Cup results (note, a Wordpress site so not RS in any case) does not include Teppei Miwa in its winners. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb Why do you keep saying that when Teppei Miwa was clearly the silver medalist of the 2018 Voronin Cup? Type "2018 Voronin Cup" on Google on there'll be a picture of him on the podium. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see later comment). None of the articles linked count towards GNG; they are all routine results announcements, insubstantial youth coverage, press releases, interviews with associates, refactored press releases on a scoring error that happened to affect him, or non-independent profiles by his school/team. JoelleJay (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article doesn’t fail WP:GNG as the FIG link describes the gymnast’s information directly & in details, & FIG is a reliable source & independent of the gymnast himself. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already voted above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NguyenDuyAnh1995, do you mean his FIG profile? Stats databases like that never, ever contribute to notability as they are indiscriminate and do not contain prose analysis. Also, even if the Voronin Cup was at the competition caliber needed by NGYMNAST, Miwa would still need to meet GNG to be notable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay in WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there’s no requirement of the sources as you said, & in WP:WHATSIGCOV there’s no compulsory of prose as well. As the source meets the WP:GNG criterion of significant coverage (describing the gymnast’s information directly & in details), reliable (as FIG is reliable in gymnastics) & independent (as the FIG is independent of the gymnast himself), the article passes WP:GNG. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NguyenDuyAnh1995 No, stats databases are not SIGCOV and do not contribute to notability. See WP:SPORTCRIT: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion ... Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability. FIG is also not independent, as it is the governing body for his sport and therefore has a vested interest in the type and amount of coverage he receives. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay The criteria above is applied to trivial coverage. If the whole page is about one person, not listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, it’s not WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Also, according to Cambridge dictionary, vested interest means a strong personal interest in something because you could get an advantage from it. What can the FIG get advantage from Teppei Miwa’s birthdate, birthplace, high school/college team, idol & injury information? NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay The Fig link is also not statistics. Statistical database typically contain parameter data and the measured data for these parameters. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria above are defining trivial coverage and giving examples of it specific to sports, including what are clearly sports statistics databases (not the same thing as a "statistical database"). This is not debatable. See, e.g., the numerous AfDs where results databases/stats profiles (and governing sports bodies) were explicitly rejected from counting toward GNG. And what purpose do you think FIG, or FIFA, or the IOC serves? Each is focused on promoting their sport(s), which obviously includes promoting positive coverage of their competitors. It also means their interest in a subject is not reflective of the general public's interest in it, just like how student body president candidates profiled in a college newspaper do not reflect the actual notability of those people outside the college. JoelleJay (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay Firstly, just because some deletion discussion mentioned it doesn’t make it right, especially when it’s not written on any WP article. The FIG link is not trivial coverage as in WP:TRIVIALMENTION, or in WP:SPORTCRIT (no definition). Secondly, google “ what is statistics database” & see if there is any results showing any definition different from Statistical database, as you claim. Thirdly, how can creating a profile of an athlete help to promote the sport? Does that lure more fans & investments? No. It would be vested interest with the teams that supply Miwa with facilities & medical condition like Juntento University, Seifu Highschool, or JGA if he competes in international tournaments, as his results & prize will bring money & reputation to them. But the FIG does not. They can get advantage of the popularity of those like Simone Biles, Aliya Mustafina...but through their performance & media coverage, not profiles on their websites. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Some deletion discussion" -- I linked multiple AfDs where sports database sources were uncontroversially disregarded when considering GNG. And it is written down: our guidelines literally exclude statistics sites/databases, which FIG and other things like sports-reference.com (the very first result when I type in "sports statistics database") and soccerway etc. indisputably are. And if you don't understand how a business can profit off of promoting its membership, or why its coverage of its own members reflects the interests of the organization rather than the world at large (in the exact same way a corporate profile written by HR does not demonstrate independent detailed coverage of someone's career), then you need to seriously take some time familiarizing yourself with en.wp community standards before contributing at AfD. At this point you're getting into WP:IDHT territory. JoelleJay (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay in sports-reference.com, data is collected statistically with parameters & measured values as it is defined in Statistical database. So the FIG link has nothing related to whatever statistic. You can see it in the example of Brenna Stewart. Also, as I said before, Miwa’s profile only benefit the teams that supplies him with facilities & medical condition, such as Seifu, Juntendo or JGA. He’s not a member of the FIG, but is for his club & national team. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pure results lists are PRIMARY data so are further excluded from GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though I agree that Miwa passes the WP:NGYMNASTICS as the runner-up of 2018 Voronin Cup & the sources (including the one in External Link) are enough for WP:GNG, many are still discussing and hilariously citing WP criterion that do not support their opinions. So I added this Yahoo Link about Miwa and you can find lots of information there, from his birthdate, birthplace, junior club, education...written in prose, with Yahoo is a reliable, secondary & independent source to meet WP:GNG. 113.190.111.42 (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked for socking in this AfD JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:GNG. I hope that isn’t a sockpuppet above me. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's a genuine new IP editor who didn't come rocketing straight to this AfD off the back of a vote on a related AfD a couple weeks ago. Oh no. Totes legit. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb I saw that IP the other day on a similar AFD and raised an eyebrow. Definitely nothing fishy going on there and isn’t trying to influence the vote, not. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fats40boy11 since you’re making a WP:GNG fail claim, can you be more in details? For example, is this source, which contains information such as Miwa’s birthdate, birthplace, education, club, some notable results, not counted as significant coverage? Or Yahoo News Japan is not a reliable source? Or Yahoo News Japan is associated or has vested interest in Miwa or gymnastics in general so it might be not independent? 113.190.111.42 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo News Japan isn’t available in the UK or EEA anymore, so I can’t see it, and can’t make any further comments on this source. Fats40boy11 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fats40boy11 so I see that you can’t access to the source, which means you have no idea if the source is significant coverage, reliable & independent. Hence your “fails GNG” claim is invalid. 113.190.111.42 (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is valid as it isn’t viewable to me or anyone else in these regions. I don’t know what’s in the article, and you haven’t provided other sources. As I said below, please provide other sources which all regions can view. Fats40boy11 (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fats40boy11: Here is the link to the Yahoo Japan feature article via Wayback Machine, which you should be able to access. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Cielquiparle as always. I’ll have a look at it in more depth in the morning when I have a greater opportunity to go through it thoroughly. Fats40boy11 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of the delete vote above says that Yahoo News Japan isn’t available in UK or EEA & can’t see it, which means he has no idea if the source is significant coverage, reliable & independent. Therefore, his “fails GNG” claim is invalid. 113.190.111.42 (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn’t. I can’t see anything and so therefore cannot verify it (unless if some in the UK or EEA can find a way round this). One source is not everything, and you are grasping at straws. From what I have, the article fails WP:GNG. Unless you can provide other sources, this remains the case. Please do not claim a vote is ‘invalid’ because it does no agree with your point of view. Fats40boy11 (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fats40boy11 you can only claim that the source fails WP:GNG if it doesn’t any of the criterion, not because you can’t view it. In Vietnam or Laos, BBC News is forbidden, so does that mean anyone living there can claim that any citation from that website fails GNG even though it meets every criteria? Or the same thing with China & tons of websites forbidden there? Take the example of grading a restaurant with Michelin stars, can you claim that it fails the criterion because you have never eaten there? Your claim is invalid because the problem is yours, not the source. According to Is it down right now? Yahoo News Japan is still working. 113.190.111.42 (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, do not claim any point of view is invalid, it will only cause more problems down the line. I will no longer engage with you in discussion if you do this again.

I have explained how I cannot view it, and will not explain my previous points again. ~~We should wherever possible use sources that everyone can see no matter of their location. Not everyone has the means to get around this. The same would go for Vietnam or Laos.~~ If your confident that the article passes WP:GNG, then prove it by other sources. I am basing my judgement on the whole article, not one source that I cannot currently view. In my own WP:BEFORE, I have not found anything. I have repeatedly asked for other sources in a respectful manner, but you have been unable to provide and have instead tried to attack and shut down my view as invalid. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from WP:SOURCEACCESS: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf. 113.190.111.42 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boom went the sock... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t believe the Yahoo article is enough on its own to save the page upon review. I’m not saying it isn’t relevant, but I’m not confident that parts are entirely independent of the subject. For example, in one section, he is described as the “inverted prince who has never failed” by a coach that has worked with the subject in the past. There are some sections that are more relevant than others, but I am still of the belief that more sources are needed to establish notability. Therefore, my view as of now is unchanged as I do not believe that the Yahoo article is enough to save the page. If anyone can find any other sources that may help, then please leave them below. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my viewpoint, I don’t have any objections to the Yahoo article being used, but believe as parts of it include individuals that have worked with him before, I don’t think that this is enough to sway me and we should look to include other sources as well. Others may have different opinions on this.

The Yahoo source is referenced after saying that he has become one of the ‘top’ and ‘most promising’ competitors in Japan. I’m not sure that anywhere in the Yahoo source it explicitly says that, and I think we have to be careful when it comes to such claims unless properly referenced by independent sources. (I’m not arguing whether he is or not, but explaining that it needs to be properly referenced)

Overall, I wouldn’t be against the article being kept if we can establish that he is indeed notable, but at the moment, I still haven’t been convinced that he is notable. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. After looking over the Yahoo article, I do think it provides significant independent commentary from the author...but that makes one potentially SIGCOV source, which I agree with Fats40boy11 is insufficient for GNG. However, given the difficulty in accessing Japanese media I can recognize the possibility of further coverage, so I'm changing my !vote to draftify or userfy to give others with better access a chance to find more SIGCOV sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Upon the above statement by JoellyJay, I think it’s correct to allow users time to find sources and have now been swayed. This will give users time to find and improve the article instead of deleting it straight away. If necessary, we can review the article at some point in the future. However, the article in my opinion does not currently pass WP:GNG, and this needs to be fixed. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:NOTPROMO, notability concerns as per JoelleJay. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: There are issues and this is a good ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P. Amarasinghe

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The position of Deputy Governor of the Central Bank is not a notable position and neither is the Chairman of the People's Bank. Dan arndt (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deputy Governor of a central bank would seem to me to be notable as would chairman of the "second largest commercial bank in Sri Lanka". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Necrothesp:, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka is a notable position but there is no precedent for the deputy to be considered automatically notable. As per WP:ANYBIO there is no sources that indicate any achievements that he made in this role. In fact the only references are merely mentions in passing. The same for his role as Chairman of the People's Bank. If there was significant coverage provided for either role I would be prepared to reconsider however I have done a relatively thorough search and can't find anything. Dan arndt (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The question of whether similar articles should be nominated for deletion can be brought up at future AFD discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compound of six pentagrammic crossed antiprisms

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

Mathcruft; referencing only one paper and that doesn't seem to discuss any specific antiprism compounds anyway (except for the four-page long table at the end maybe). A web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one is UC29 at Uniform_polyhedron_compound, which uses the same 1976 reference to catalogue all such compound polyhedra. The article does contain some information that's not in the table at Uniform_polyhedron_compound. I'm open to persuasion that the additional information isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, but until persuaded, I'm going with a weak keep (for some reason, amateur/general interest maths is fascinated by polyhedra). But many of the other polyhedra in the list suffer from the same problem, for example Compound_of_five_small_rhombihexahedra. It might be helpful to extend this AfD to consider the others. Some, like Compound_of_two_tetrahedra contain much more additional information. We should definitely list these things, the question is whether all need individual articles. If we do choose to delete, we should delete a lot of the others too. Elemimele (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a source for the Cartesian coordinates? I was unable to find one in my poking about, and that is all the information that the article provides beyond what's in the table at Uniform polyhedron compound. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent notability, separately from the list of uniform compounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this has no notability independent of the broader category to which it belongs. --JBL (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Circus of Crime

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

Despite over 40 refs, the article is a WP:GNG fail. It is a pure plot summary with a bit of publication history and a list of appearances in other media. There is no evidence of any reception o significance. The few refs which are not PRIMARY are to plot summary sources like The Marvel Encyclopedia, which is an illustrated artbook, not a scholarly encyclopedia. Perhaps there is a redirect target this could be target at, but the case for stand-alone article is rather fancrufty, I am afraid. PS. Possible redirect target: Ringmaster (comics). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Crime. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has this book chapter been taken into account when asserting that this fails WP:GNG/has no significant reception? Daranios (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios I don't have access to the source; what I see doesn't suggest that there is WP:SIGCOV of this inside. I'll be happy to read the article if someone tell me how to access it. Btw, the reference may warrant mentioning this entity in circus in popular culture, although that article is not written yet. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. To the closer if the outcome is either delete or merge, I ask that any member who has their pages currently redirecting to the Circus of Crime have their information redirected to the respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages also in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse request. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic doesn't appear to have any sources that allow it to meet WP:GNG. There doesn't appear to be anything worth salvaging for a merge at this time. If it's going to appear anywhere, it'll probably be a two sentence blurb on a large list. TTN (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect per all. Subject does not have sources to meet the WP:GNG. I respect the spirit of WP:PRESERVE proposed by Rtkat3 and a redirect would maintain the history of these non-notable topics. Jontesta (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE per Rtkat3. BOZ (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations#Circus of Crime, does not meet WP:GNG but a summary should be merged to the target page. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omkar Rai (Technocrat)

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

Article lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources for verification. The initial batch of references all appear to derive from a press release, while the final batch relate to articles by him, not about him - the 'Career' section is otherwise devoid of references, with no citations to support the assertions made. Paul W (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources all seem to be relatively unreliable, and the more reliable one only makes a passing mention of the subject. Chagropango (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage of a routine technocrat. No significant, in-depth coverage from secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation can be improvedThe subject is IT Startup system enabler and currently the Chairman of India's 3rd most progressing state in Start-up list. He was quoted as one of the global IoT influencers. Citation updated RufinaSmith (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Linkedin creep again. Nothing notable found. Being a "notable alumni" isn't important. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the earlier AfD from 2020 WP:Articles for deletion/Omkar Rai to this. I could not find the instructions to do it. Omkar Rai, Dr Omkar Rai and Dr. Omkar Rai were all turned into redirects per the earlier AfD. Jay 15:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not appropriateThe redirect is the subject's former association and gives vague and inadequate information to the community. Subject can be considered notable under WP:ACADEMIC#5 and #6 considering 1) Awarded Global IoT Influencer 2) Conferred Digital Icon award for spearheading a silent IT intervention across the country 3) Considered a change maker and enabler in the start-up ecosystem in India. More citations can be added RufinaSmith (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not independently covered in reliable sources.MickeyMouse143 (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Ying-chie

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Fails WP:GNG, with the only coverage in potentially reliable sources consisting of trivial mentions. Apparently two of his grandchildren are notable (although I doubt it for one of them), but notability isn't inherited. BilletsMauves (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. January 2000 articles about his death:
  1. Cheung, Chi-Fai (2000-01-27). "Tributes flow for modest tycoon". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 265565677. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
    The article notes: "Those paying tribute included Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, Financial Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, New World Development chairman Cheng Yu-tung, Cable & Wireless HKT chief executive Linus Cheung Wing-lam and movie star Jackie Chan."
  2. Lewis, Tommy (2000-01-22). "Tobacco tycoon dies at 89". South China Morning Post. p. 1. ProQuest 265548630. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
    The article notes: "Tycoon Ho Ying-chie, who made his fortune from cigarettes and gave hundreds of millions of dollars to charity, has died aged 89."
  3. "Passage: Died: Ho Ying-chie". Asiaweek. 2000-02-04. ProQuest 228673584.
2. 東方明珠浦東 [Oriental Pearl Pudong] (in Chinese). 右灰文化傳播有限公司. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "何英傑人物資訊何英傑(1911 年 6 月 8 日—2000 年 1 月 21 日),上海浦東出生,香港慈善家,香港煙草有限公司創辦人。被香港人稱為“何伯”。人物生平人稱“何伯”的何英傑,1925 年進入家族的印刷廠當學徒,1931 年創辦上海新亞印刷廠,抗日戰爭期間仍然繼續經營, ..."
  From Google Translate: "He Yingjie Character information He Yingjie (June 8, 1911 - January 21, 2000), born in Pudong, Shanghai, Hong Kong philanthropist, founder of Hong Kong Tobacco Co., Ltd. He is called "He Bo" by Hong Kong people. He Yingjie, known as "He Bo" in his life, entered the family's printing factory as an apprentice in 1925, and founded Shanghai Xinya Printing Factory in 1931, which continued to operate during the Anti-Japanese War."
3. 生日密碼財運、事業篇【6月】 [Birthday Password Wealth, Career [June]] (in Chinese). Taipei: 真源有限公司. 2016. pp. 25–26. ISBN 978-9-88-773063-7. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "慈善家煙草商為善不留名何英傑,1911 年 6 月 8 日於中國上海出生,綽號何伯,「香港煙草有限公司」創辦人及前董事長, 是位大慈善家。1925 年,他在家族經營的印刷廠當學徒,1931 年創辦「上海新亞印刷廠」。1942 年在上海創辦香煙廠及「高樂香煙」品牌。"
  From Google Translate: "Philanthropist tobacco businessman He Yingjie, who was born on June 8, 1911 in Shanghai, China, nicknamed He Bo, the founder and former chairman of "Hong Kong Tobacco Co., Ltd.", is a great philanthropist. In 1925, he apprenticed in the family-run printing house, and in 1931 he founded the "Shanghai Xinya Printing Factory". In 1942, he founded a cigarette factory and the brand of "Gaole Cigarette" in Shanghai."
4. 資本雜誌, Issues 158–163 [Capital Magazine, Issues 158–163] (in Chinese). Capital Communications Corporation. 2001. p. 52. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "何伯何英偉家族要何英傑 1911 年於上海浦東出生, 14 歲輟學加入家族經營的印尼,商當學徒, 16 歲升為經理。抗日戰爭期間,他以 2000 元資金創新上海新亞印刷廠,由於當時許多印刷窗因戰停業,令他的印刷廠速發展。另外,他又立下大批紙張,其後紙價飛升, "
  From Google Translate: "He Bo and He Yingwei's family wanted He Yingjie to be born in Pudong, Shanghai in 1911. He dropped out of school at the age of 14 to join the family-run Indonesian business, and became an apprentice at the age of 16. He was promoted to manager at the age of 16. During the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, he innovated the Shanghai Xinya Printing Factory with 2,000 yuan of funds. Since many printing windows were closed due to the war at that time, his printing factory developed rapidly. In addition, he set up a large amount of paper, and then the price of paper soared,"
5. 香港回归十年志: 2000年卷 [The Decade of Hong Kong's Return: Volume 2000] (in Chinese). Shandong: Shandong People's Publishing House [zh]. 2007. p. 20. ISBN 978-7-20-904247-5. Retrieved 2022-07-25. [zh]&rft.date=2007&rft.isbn=978-7-20-904247-5&rft_id=https://books.google.com/books?id=onC6AAAAIAAJ&q=%22何英傑%22+1911&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 25" class="Z3988">
  The article notes: "今日日志何英杰 1911 年 6 月 8 日出生于上海浦东。 1931 年创办上海新亚印刷厂; 1942 年创立上海烟厂; 1950 年创立香港烟草公司; 1983 年创立“良友慈善基金会”扶贫济世; 1994 年成立何英杰基金会有限○新任香港美国商会主席凯勒敦促美国国会尽快公司。"
  From Google Translate: "Today's Journal He Yingjie was born on June 8, 1911 in Pudong, Shanghai. Founded Shanghai Xinya Printing Factory in 1931; Shanghai Tobacco Factory in 1942; Hong Kong Tobacco Company in 1950; "Liangyou Charity Foundation" in 1983 to help the poor; Le urges the U.S. Congress to get the company as soon as possible."
6. Yao, Mu 姚牧 (2001). 范徐丽泰: 香港政坛第一位 "女议长" [Fan Xu Litai: the first "female speaker" in Hong Kong politics] (in Chinese). Shanghai: Shanghai People's Press. ISBN 978-7-20-803815-8. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "人称“何伯”的大慈善家何英杰,为香港烟草公司创办人,生前常以无名氏在中国内地和香港两地捐款,估计历年捐款累计逾 8 亿港元。最为人们称道的是,每年在“欢乐满东华”的活动中,他都捐款逾千万元。早年在华东赈灾中捐款逾亿港元。何伯于 1911 年在上海出生, ..."
  From Google Translate: "He Yingjie, a great philanthropist known as "Bo He", is the founder of Hong Kong Tobacco Company. What is most praised is that he donates more than 10 million yuan every year in the "Happy Man Donghua" event. In the early years, he donated more than 100 million Hong Kong dollars to disaster relief in East China. He Bo was born in Shanghai in 1911, ..."
7. "香港煙草有限公司董事長，何英傑先生之夫人昨擧殯，紳商名流親友致祭者衆". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1980-05-03. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ho Ying-chie (traditional Chinese: 何英傑; simplified Chinese: 何英杰) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be enough media coverage to qualify for notability, but the article itself doesn't contain enough information to justify the subject having its own article. Chagropango (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEXIST the sources do not need to be in the article for the article to survive. See also WP:NEGLECT. Jumpytoo Talk 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have to be somewhere, per WP:NEXIST! To quote from it: "An article's subject can be notable if sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive." Emphasis on "yet." See also WP:SOURCESEXIST. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject passes GNG and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved. If, however, there is no usable content, it may well be best to delete." And this AfD is precisely about an alleged lask of usable content. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided seem impressive at first glance but do not stand up to scrutiny:

The Oriental Pearl Pudong text simply contains a large bunch of obituaries, a short one of which is about our subject; the book Birthday Password Wealth, Career offer a rather weak testimonial of significance since it contains astrological portraits of wealthy persons born on the same day of the month, one of which concerns our subject; we have a 1980 article in the long-defunct The Kung Sheung Daily News that not even the editor who submitted it could ascertain its relevancy; Mu Yao's book is about Hong-Kong politician Fan Xu Litai, "the first female president of the Hong Kong legislative" within whose long text, built around an interview with the politician there is a single, shlrt mention of Ho Ying-chi; the book The Decade of Hong Kong's Return: 2000 is about exactly what its title says, i.e. a history of Hong Kong in the 21st century, in whichour subject is name dropped; and so on. In short, we have a number of media texts about something else and not our subject, in which Ho Ying-chie is mentioned in texts of rather insignificant length. The best testimony is offered at the time of his death, when two consecutive texts appeared in the South China Morning Post, one obit and one reportage about the funeral. We cannot declare this a promotional text but it's certainly about a non-notable business person. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The Oriental Pearl Pudong contains an estimated 570 Chinese characters of coverage about Ho Ying-chie that takes up nearly a full page about the subject. This is a very substantial source. The South China Morning Post, the newspaper of record in Hong Kong, published two detailed articles about Ho Ying-chie. The other sources are under the Google Books snippets view so I have limited access to them, but it is clear from the snippets the sources (such as the third and fourth sources) provide nontrivial coverage about the subject. The guideline notes that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". When doing combining all the sources here, it is clear that Ho Ying-chie meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
Cunard (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming you do not speak the language, Cunard, one wonders how you were able to establish, first of all, that the plethora of SCMP references are all about our subject, and not about someone else with the same name. (I find it hard to believe it's a unique name in China, in South China, or even in just Hong Kong.) Then, one has to wonder how you were able to establish that the "snippets" (your term, indicentally) are "clearly" proofs of "non-trivial coverage." Shouldn't this be the result of some careful scrutiny by a Mandarin speaker? And multiple "snippets" do not amount, even cumulatively, to much, especially when, as I demonstrated, they are practically all about someone or something else and not about our subject! As to the "two detailed articles" in the SCMP, I already pointed out that one was the necessary obit and the other about the funeral. End of coverage. Ho Ying-chie should try harder, but I doubt that's possible. -The Gnome (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources say Ho Ying-chie was born in 1911 in Shanghai and was in the tobacco business. Most sources say Ho Ying-chie was in the printing business. This matches what the Wikipedia article says about the subject. All of the sources and the Wikipedia article are definitively about the same person. Cunard (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – When multiple reliable sources (see below) including the local newspaper of record deem that news coverage of his death and funeral are warranted, and many important officials (including Chinese Vice Premier and HK Chief Exec.) and other famous people send condolences and pay tribute to him, it sends a massive signal that the individual is of great importance in local (China & HK) society. Main complaint here used to advocate for deletion seems to be a lack of sources, either to prove notability, or having established that, to provide sufficient verifiable information to be included in the article. This is caused by various factors, primarily wp:systemic bias due to issues like language barrier, recency bias of content available online, lack of archived content or difficulty accessing it, etc. Additionally, despite being well-known enough to have gained the nickname "Uncle Ho", the subject shunned publicity and kept a low profile. In any case, these are surmountable problems and I intend to help with that. Here's a review of sources from my own preliminary search plus others already found earlier (translations my own):
- Coverage of death
  - EN: Lewis, Tommy (22 Jan 2000) Tobacco tycoon dies at 89, SCMP Yes
  - EN: Cheung, Chi-Fai (27 Jan 2000) Tributes flow for modest tycoon, SCMP Yes
  - ZH: 香港煙草公司創辦人何英傑今日舉殯 / Funeral of HK Tobacco Co. founder Ho Ying-chie today. Radio Free Asia, 25 Jan 2000 Yes
  - ZH: 香港大慈善家何英杰先生逝世 / Major HK philanthropist Mr. Ho Ying-chie passes away. China News 2000-1-23 Yes
  - ZH: 钱其琛致电悼念何英杰先生 / [Vice Premier] Qian Qichen sends condolences for Mr. Ho Ying-chie China News 2000-1-26 Y Partly very short piece, but establishes he was important enough to receive this official gesture
  - ZH: in Asia Weekly 亞洲週刊 Volume 14, Issues 1-17 2000 Page 61 via Google books — full text not available, but assessed SIGCOV from title and snippet Yes
    香港慈善家何英傑逝世 / 香港人稱「何伯」的慈善家何英傑,一月二十一日病逝,享年八十九歲。何伯是香港煙草公司創辦人。他歷年捐助慈善公益的金額至少八億港元,但作風低調,甚少露面。何伯出生於上海浦東,早年在家族的印刷廠工作,三一年自创印刷廠 ...
    HK philanthropist Ho Ying-chie passes away / Philanthropist Ho Ying-chie, who was called "Uncle Ho" by Hong-kongers, died of illness on Jan 21 at the age if 89. Uncle Ho was the founder of HK tobacco co. He has donated at least HK$800 million to charity over the years, but kept a low profile and made few public appearances. Uncle Ho was born in Pudong, Shanghai, and worked in his family's printing business in his early years before starting one of his own in 1931...
- Individual profile (published upon his death)
  - 忆香港神密善长何伯 / Remembering HK's mysterious philanthropist "Uncle Ho". China News Feb 2000 Y Yes ← This has so much information! They wouldn't have compiled and published all this if he wasn't notable.
- Family/dynastic profiles appearing in 資本雜誌 / Capital Magazine — these are SIGCOV of the family as a whole, since some of his descendants are also prominent people; includes biographical info about the subject in substantial detail as the founder of the dynasty. We don't have full text, only snippets, but even those are loaded with usable information.
  - 2001 issues 158-163 Yes
    何伯何英偉家族要 / 何英傑 1911 年於上海浦東出生, 14 歲輟學加入家族經營的印刷商當學徒, 16 歲升為經理。抗日戰爭期間,他以 2000 元資金創新上海新亞印刷廠,由於當時許多印刷窗因戰停業,令他的印刷廠速發展。另外,他又立下大批紙張,其後紙價飛升, ...
    Uncle Ho / Ho Ying-chie family profile // Ho Ying-chie was born in 1911 in Pudong, Shanghai. At the age of 14 he dropped out of school and joined the family printing business as an apprentice, becoming a manager at age 16. During the war with Japan, he invested 2000 Yuan to establish the Shanghai New Asia Printing Factory; the closure of many printers during the war led his printing factory to develop rapidly. Furthermore, he had assembled a large stock of paper [which turned to his benefit when] the price of paper subsequently soared...
  - 2005 issues 218-223 Yes
    ... 對何家無甚認識,直至 1991 年華東水災,已故大慈善家何柱國祖父何英傑(何伯) -千金捐款 1 億元賑災,豐厚身家隨即曝光。何英傑於 40 年代策香煙起家, 1942 年在上海開設煙廠,生產高樂牌香煙。 50 年代在港創香港煙草公司, 1978 年取得萬寶路、摩利士等 ...
    ...the Ho family was not well known until the Eastern China flood of 1991 when the late philanthropist and grandfather of Charles Ho Ho Ying-chie (Uncle Ho) donated 100 million Yuan to disaster relief, which instantly exposed the family's wealth. Ho Ying-chie's career in cigarettes started in the 1940s: in 1942, he opened a tobacco factory in Shanghai to produce Gaole brand cigarettes. He established the Hong Kong Tobacco Company in Hong Kong in the 1950s; in 1978 he acquired [rights to distribute?] Marlboro, Morris, etc...
- Other coverage and mentions
  - HK$50 million donation for disaster aid from him grandson: 何英傑、何柱國為內地災區捐款五千萬港元中國新聞. China News Agency 2 Sep 1998 p.25 Yes full text not available, but from the title and lead snippet I would infer that this is an article regarding the donation specifically and not a just passing mention as part of wider coverage about the disaster.
  - 图:香港复明手术车帮助广东瑶族民众复明 China News 2002-12-25 Photo. caption indicates mobile ophthalmology surgery donated by him. Y Partly Not sigcov but adds verification regarding his philanthropic activities.
  - 紫荆杂志：透视华人社会“慈善之都”——香港 One paragraph mention in Bauhinia Magazine article about Hong Kong as "charity capital" of China. Y Partly Not sigcov, but provides verifiable content.
- Comment on other sources — Cunard made a good faith attempt to find sources with the aid of machine translation, but only some of it is useful. OCR and translation problems did not help.
  - Oriental Pearl Pudong The Gnome's characterization of this as a collection of obituaries is inaccurate. This is a collection of information about Pudong and related subjects; has sections like 1.2 geography, 1.3 natural resources, 1.4 demographics, 1.5 administrative divisions, 1.6 transport; 2. history; 3. economy ... chapter 5 covers selected people and has a section on Ho Ying-chie. The real problem here is that the publication is dubious, the author as indicated on the cover is a pretty ridiculous nom de plume “可樂泡飯”/"cola soaked rice" and there is good reason to suspect that the contents were pretty much just ripped from Baidu Baike. No We can't use this.
  - Birthday Secret Code — Wealth & Career Fortune telling / numerology publication No not usable for notability and there are better sources for biographical info
  - Capital Magazine is one of the two dynasty profiles already mentioned above
  - The Decade of Hong Kong's Return We don't have full text, but I can tell this is a set of historical yearbooks; his death is included in the volume corresponding to the year 2000, with brief biography. Yes the correct way to assess this is as a tertiary source, published 7~8 years later — subject warranted inclusion.
  - Fan Xu Litai We don't have full text and I'm not sure why this book, seemingly about an unrelated subject, contains biographical info about Ho. ? Unsure if nothing else, provides more verifiable information
  - Kung Sheung Daily News 1980 article: this is news coverage specifically about the funeral of his wife. Y Partly they are notable enough in HK society that even her death warranted coverage.

Easily passes GNG. This includes sources for which we have not yet located full text, but with enough Chinese language proficiency can be assessed as SIGCOV based on available title, snippets, publication metadata and other context. There is no good reason to dismiss obituaries that are actual news articles (as opposed to obituaries and death notices in classified ads section). There is plenty enough material to work with so not "enough information" is not a valid concern. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trip (Band UK)

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

No evidence found of notability. They have contributed one song to a soundtrack, but no reliable independent source seems to have written about them, just passing mentions, unreliable sources, databases... We don't even have an article for the soundtrack as a whole, so a redirect target doesn't seem to be available. Fram (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – After performing several various, in-depth customized source searches to compensate for the generic name of the band, finding no significant coverage in reliable sources, just directory listings and the most minor of passing mentions. The band existed, but it is not notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further TV appearances have been added. The Columbia Tristar movie is still widely available (and Terry Gilliam is still a creative force) and the band appear in the credits.

Notability cannot solely be attributed to internet sources. The band have a chapter in Oliver Gray's book 'Volume'.

I shall try and find a link/specific mention for your records. NedRifle (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can buy The Birth EP as a CD in secondhand shops, but that's about all there is out there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further TV appearances have been added. The movie is still widely available and the band appear in the credits.

Notability cannot solely be attributed to internet sources. The band have a chapter in Oliver Gray's book 'Volume'.

I shall try and find a link/specific mention for your records. NedRifle (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link to sound track review now included (ref#6)

I have contacted the author of the music book 'Volume' which has a chapter about Trip.

When he directs me to an online archive or link I shall include it. NedRifle (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of articles on this band were in the print media. Archives of which are hard to trace.

The band's T-shirts were worn by other bands (notably EMF) and I am trying to track down the 'Melody Maker, April 20, 1991 which has pictorial evidence.

Further TV appearances have been added. The movie (The Fisherking) is still widely available and the band appear in the credits.

Notability cannot solely be attributed to internet sources. The band have a chapter in Oliver Gray's book 'Volume'.

I shall try and find a link/specific mention for your records. NedRifle (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see further YouTube footage of TV appearances (in conjunction with Movie release)NedRifle (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NedRifle is trying very hard to find evidence that the band was notable, but the problem is sources that are not only reliable but also discuss the band in a significant fashion. I perused the YouTube links and it is true that the band was profiled on BBC a few times, but in brief "local band done good" segments and allusions in pieces that were actually about The Fisher King. They were mentioned in the book Volume by Oliver Gray but that book is about Gray's life and The Trip is mentioned as a band he saw back in the day. If their singer was on the cover, that is equivalent to a personal modeling gig and does nothing for the band. They are not mentioned in the Guardian article that is cited, their producer is. I simply cannot find any of that significant coverage that goes into serious depth about the band themselves instead of people/things that they were associated with. The magazine articles that NedRifle is hunting down will probably be more of the same. Sorry, the band came kind of close but no cigar. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, sources very ropey   Kadzi   (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Taaf Sahib

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found these sources which show he is notable in Fiji: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. In addition to these sources, he also is mentioned in countless match reports. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the sources above, four are primary sources from the Fiji Football Association [43][44] or the Oceania Football Confederation[45][46]. The rest are fairly trivial mentions[47], minor stories[48][49] and match reports [50]. The only one that might possibly be significant is this from the Fiji Times that is locked behind a paywall. Even if it was significant, GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. I don't think the OFC is a 'primary source' here. Giant Snowman 19:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPORTBASIC. Proponents of keepy uppy should be producing sources of substance and not mentions in the Oceania Football Confederation website or the Fiji Football Association one that contain exhaustive listings of its member players. These are not indicative of notability. Neither are the Facebook pages of them; or news items (here, here, etc) about the Fiji squad, but not about Sahib specifically; or news about futsal such as this and this; and so on. The attempt to inundate the text with links might be seen by some as commendable but WP:GNG is simply no met. -The Gnome (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing for GNG. Additional sources from above should be added. More strong attempts should be made to find additional sources before proposing deletion. El Dubs (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would facilitate the discussion, as well as the closing decision, if contributors were to offer concrete, source-based arguments and criticism instead of just posting up claims, e.g. "sufficient sourcing". -The Gnome (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing in the article is insufficient and the sources presented above are also insufficient to pass WP:GNG - passing mentions, team lists - but no article whatsoever about the player himself - WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide some basis for that verdict? -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alvaldi's and The Gnome's analyses are spot-on. And obviously the OFC is not independent of its membership so can't be used for notability, but even if it was, neither of those pieces would contribute to GNG as the first is like 95% quotes and the second is a press release. These types of non-independent and passing-mention sources are regularly rejected at AfD, why do editors keep bringing them up and wasting people's time?? JoelleJay (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are split about whether this type of list of lists is desirable. A broader discussion, such as in a RfC, might be helpful. Sandstein 08:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages in popular culture

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

I wouldn't be surprised a proper article could be written on this topic. This unreferenced list, however, fails WP:IPC, WP:NLIST, WP:GNG and merits WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious WP:TNT, just a list of lists without any discussion whatsoever Dronebogus (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, a 'list of lists', no content, no context. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's nothing wrong with a list of lists, though the article should be called "List of..." and introduced as such. Lists of lists, like outlines, are standard navigation constructs on Wikipedia. This one logically groups Middle Ages lists by period, so it is also untrue that it provides no context; but context can readily be fixed by editing, and is no reason for deletion either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap So how would you like to rename this? List of lists of topics related to Middle Ages and popular culture? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As currently framed, that would be in the right direction, if rather wordy. But I agree with Chagropango that the topic as named now is notable in itself, as serious authors like Tom Shippey have discussed it, indeed there is no shortage of WP:RS available. Actually I might remind everybody that notability is not a product of how well or badly an article is put together, but of the subject itself, i.e. how far it has attracted scholars and others to write about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a subject with great potential which could fall under the field of historiography. Depictions of the middle ages often either portray the period as an idealized period of fantasy and chivalry or a time of absolute misery and oppression, and there are often underlying motives behind these narratives which have notable discussion in academic discourse. For example, The Middle Ages in Popular Imagination: Memory, Film and Medievalism by Paul B. Sturtevant might be a good starting point.

The current form may not justify an article, but this information could be a useful addendum and reference point for an eventual expanded version of the article, so I think it makes sense to keep it and instead call for improvement and expansion. Chagropango (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT. Christ almighty another one of these. These (historical topic in popular culture) articles could be genuinely good articles if they were written well, but completely worthless in their current state. Curbon7 (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the notion that this should become a list article. I think this and several others in the same vein that have come to AfD, such as Japanese mythology in popular culture, would be very high-quality when written in prose. Curbon7 (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As I noted in the OP, this is potentially a topic of a solid prose article, based on multiple RS. But potential is not enough when the current mess is a textbook case of WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete -- This is a list article, but even then a poor one. It would need to be something like List of modern popular culture topics related to the Middle Ages. It should exclude items like Knight errant, which are primarily topics of medieval literature. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just an arbitrary list pointing to other lists   Kadzi   (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is useless in its current state. Even if there is potential for a prose article, there's nothing here to use as a springboard for improvement. Start from scratch in the main article. TTN (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a perfectly reasonable, navigational set index article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- How on Earth is this a WP:Set index article? Per that page, A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. I daresay that doesn't describe the collection of articles here which includes Historical reenactment, List of translations and artistic depictions of Beowulf, Viking revival, Robin Hood in popular culture, and Knight-errant. TompaDompa (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a list of WP:IPC articles that have the characteristic in common of their subjects being from the same period in history. Historical reenactment should probably be omitted from the list though. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 02:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this is a set of anything but an indiscriminate mess. It's a list of random topics connected to Middle Ages. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion and topic relevance. If I were studying or just inquisitive about the Middle Ages this encyclopedic resource would both point the way and give me new ideas about where to look. Some editors don't like things like this, hence these type of deletion discussions and the all-too-easy throwing of TNT. I'd remind them that not every useful thing has to be in paragraphed prose. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per discussion and topic relevancy. If I were studying or just curious about the Middle Ages this particular encyclopedic resource would be useless and confusing. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mock me a bit, but yes, the page would be a valuable resource for new ideas of where and what to search that reader's may not have imagined or found elsewhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a navigational (set index) article, albeit a slapdash one. It doesn't need sources, just articles to point to. I fail to see the harm it causes for the ~15 or so people who visit it each day. This is not a TNT situation, but a SOFIXIT one. Srnec (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HARMLESS is not an argument, it’s excuse making. Dronebogus (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SailingInABathTub and Srnec. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Wexler

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

John Wexler is undoubtedly a celebrated man in his incredibly specialised field, but that does not make him notable as per WP:GNG, which is where we fall. His 'Encyclopedia of Doubled Dies' is a self-published, ring-bound volume. His magazine appearances are as a specialist or columnist. There is no significant coverage in secondary sources either presented here or to be found online. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angriff!

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

No indication of notability or meeting GNG. The three refs cite the publisher's website (not independent), a rule copy (not significant coverage), and a BGG link (unreliable). Searching on Google (books, news, scholar) and BGG, I could find maybe passing mentions (I think according to Google Translate?) 1, 2, but otherwise, this isn't notable. VickKiang (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I searched through ProQuest, JSTOR, and EBSCO and couldn't find anything for this game beyond the rulebook. Sam Walton (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The mentions and descriptions of this game would be in tabletop wargaming magazines. Unfortunately I do not have the issues, but I can tell you this game was a key game in the formulative years of mini-figure wargaming. I searched eBay but was unable to find aa magazine auction that mentioned a review of the game, but I am positive they exist in magazines such as "Wargamer", "Europa", "The Courier", "Wargamer's Digest", "Campaign", "Miniature Wargames", "Wargames Illustrated", "Fire & Movement", "Paper War", "Military Modelling", "Wargames Soldiers & Strategy", "Moves", "Boardgame Journal", CounterAttack" and others. Radical Mallard (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Since a couple of sources have been found I'm striking my delete vote. Sam Walton (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also nervous of deleting this based only on a search for online sources. Radical Mallard is right: it is absolutely guaranteed that this game will only have been written-about in paper magazines, because of its nature, and the time it was produced. It is also highly likely that such sources exist. We should not go deleting just because we don't have those magazines at our fingertips. Elemimele (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the nervousness and it would be great if we could find some digitised archives for those magazines. I took a quick look on archive.org and found this brief description of the 4th edition of the game in Craft, Model, and Hobby Industry Magazine. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It’s an interesting source, but to count towards significant coverage needs one lengthy paragraph, I don’t think this meets the mark yet. VickKiang (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the line it is absolutely guaranteed that this game will only have been written-about in paper magazines probably needs more evidence to support it. I also tried to search BGG for awards and links, and it also didn’t list any there. I will be happy to change my mind once more refs are provided, but right now I am still keeping my nom vote for delete/strong delete. VickKiang (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a couple of sources (one of them a paper source as mentioned above, a review in Wargamer's Digest Nov. 1975). Undoubtedly there are other paper sources out there as well, this was one of the formative rule sets for modern-era wargaming. In addition I expanded the article to give background and more encyclopedia tone. Guinness323 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guinness323: Thanks for your replies! I think ref 1 and 5 are probably counting towards GNG (but could you transclude on talk page the paragraph that mentions Angriff (to see if it's long enough to be considered significant)? From what I can see, ref 2 is unreliable, ref 3 is probably too short, and ref 4 is BGG (unreliable); so I might still be at weak delete. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to tabletop gaming, this is an obscure set of rules... It's not a Dungeons and Dragons rule book, which might have a shot at an article for example. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, today this is an obscure set of rules, even in the HO wargaming world, because it has been superseded by many other sets of rules. But those new sets of rules are all based in some way on the groundword laid down by Angriff!. Back in the 1960s, this was the original set of rules that every WW2 HO and micro armor wargamer used. The question is not "Is this obscure today?' but "Has this always been obscure?" I believe the answer to that is no. Guinness323 (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @Guinness323: Still, I am uncertain about this. It's obscure definitely not (maybe it was popular then, but I wasn't born in the 1970s, so couldn't comment), but I still don't think it meets GNG. I couldn't access ref 1, but is it just a rules overview (if so, it isn't significant). Ref 2 is probably unreliable and is a model website; ref 3 appears to be not significant. I definitely feel that ref 5 is IMO counting towards GNG, but don't agree with keeping still. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The thing is, we need to prove it wasn't obscure, we can't assume that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It pains me to see this go. I'd really like to see this transwikified to some fan wiki about wargaming or such. Currently I am afraid I lean towards nom's view that WP:GNG is not met. https://wargaming.fandom.com/wiki/Wargaming_Wiki is sadly squtted by by a particular company (sigh), https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Index is closed or hard to figure out like most half-closed niche wikis, same for https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/wiki/index/ .... I have no clue how to save this. Color me sad. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability appears met by current references, we're all aware this predates the era of internet reviews so source searching is hampered, and no one is making any current profit off of this. Merging to an article on classic miniatures rules wouldn't be a horrible outcome either, but there's no need to delete this just because the online sources aren't comparable to what we'd see on a current game. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I still feel that only ref 5 meets Wikipedia:GNG, ref 1 is a rules overview probably and the others are unreliable or insignificant. Either way, this AfD has been running for a while, IMO it would probably be relisted again, or right now closed as no consensus? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Piotrus: @BOZ: @Guinness323: This has been relisted again, and might be closed as no consensus after this. But I still stand by my weak delete vote, the current refs (no more have been added) have a single ref counting to GNG, and notability doesn't seem to be met. Do other editors voting keep consider ref 1 and 3 to be SIGCOV (from what I can see, these, at best, mentions this game trivially)? It could be argued that ref 2 is an RS, but I strongly oppose, it is a shoping site with a sketchy about us page. Many thanks for your participation again! VickKiang (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang Honestly, I should be weak delete here too, but as I said, it pains me to see this gone without being saved anywhere. WP:ITSUSEFUL, and yes, I know that's a bad argument. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shayana Windsor

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What’s said above is true CreecregofLife (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Captains a leading domestic team, has played for her country at both junior and adult levels. Considerable local match coverage featuring her goals in international matches and to a lesser extent her club role. I've used the coverage to expand the article a bit. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir.--MonFrontieres (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has played for the Cayman Islands women's national football team and, thus, meets WP:FOOTYN (Players are deemed notable if they have played FIFA recognised senior international football). -The Gnome (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a depreciated criteria which no longer exists. Your argument is no longer valid. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Changing suggestion to Delete, per WP:SPORTBASIC. -The Gnome (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed we now need a pass of WP:GNG and we do not pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Yngvadottir:. Also, I found more sources online that show she is notable in Cayman Islands besides captaining the national team, such as 1. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do think she passes GNG on the basis of a plethora of mentions, of which I'm assuming I didn't find some; there appear to be several Cayman Islands newspapers/news sites, with patchy archives online, and I kept being limited to full view of only one article and having to use Google cache or something. But from the details I suspect that scholarship announcement is someone else of the same name. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Passing mentions in routine sports recaps, especially in local papers, and especially for youth events, do not amount to GNG and are explicitly rejected by NSPORT. Every decent high school athlete will have a "plethora of mentions", and most will have far more extensive coverage than what we have here.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Cayman Compass 1		Routine sports recap	✘ No
CONCACAF 1	governing sports orgs are never independent	?	✘ No
Cayman Sports Buzz		half a sentence in a routine recap of a high school match	✘ No
Cay 3 sports		half a sentence in routine match recap	✘ No
Cayman Compass 2	but note it is not independent of the other Cayman Compass coverage	mention in routine match recap	✘ No
GSA stats db	?	sports dbs are never SIGCOV	✘ No
CONCACAF 2			✘ No
Cayman Loop news	press release from scholarship org	two sentences listing high school classes	✘ 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}}.

JoelleJay (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - JoelleJay's source analysis table sums up the situation perfectly. A plethora of passing mentions but no actual significant detail in any of the available sources. No prejudice against a copy being stored in user or draft space given the age of the player, could potentially be notable in the future. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable footballer. Indianfootball98 (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Wang

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

Although Victor Wang is a professor, he does not pass the notability test as seen here: WP:BIO Wozal (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Artists. Wozal (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Fauntleroy, Gussie (1997-05-23). "Victor Wang: The repercussions of change. Perceptions of a different culture". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Growing up in Heilongjiang Province in mainland China, Wang's earliest interest in art came, ironically, with the beginning of Mao's Cultural Revolution. When Wang was in the third grade, political cartoons were popular on the streets of his city, and he began to collect and copy the cartoons. ... After leaving the farm, Wang studied art education, became an illustrator for the Chinese government and then passed a rigorous examination to enter one of the top three art institutes in China. He graduated as a top student and was hired at the same school, Lu Xun Academy of Fine Arts, as an assistant professor of art. In 1987 Wang was sent to this country for a year as a visiting scholar at Lu Xun Academy's sister school, the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. Then, unable to return to China for fear of being imprisoned after the Tiananmen Square incident, he enrolled in the graduate program at Washington University in St. Louis. He later transferred to Fontbonne College, where he received his master of fine arts degree and now teaches painting."
2. Duffy, Robert W. (1996-09-19). "Go Figure". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The human figure, as Victor Wang and Mark Weber note in the introduction to the show they organized at Fontbonne, has been at the center of art since early man first scratched something into the wall. ... The spaces Victor Wang invents with paint are full of light and life, and in his large Celebration of Life, you feel the breeze that is making the flames of the candles flicker. This celebration is a metaphorical one: It is not the sort of scene we associate with the occasions of joy, but rather is an account of a performance of some sort where two characters wear masks and everyone is clothed in ambiguity."
3. Harris, Paul A. (1991-08-13). "Victor Wang's Paintins Are Studies In Contrast". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Victor Wang explores fields of opposites in paintings and drawings on display in the Garret Gallery. In both painterly and metaphorical terms, his art probes harmony and conflict. Wang, an artist from China who teaches at Fontbonne College, possesses a remarkable foundation in European naturalism and realism, learned while studying for his master's degree in Manchuria at the Lu Xun College of Fine Arts. He is fluent in the use of chiaroscuro, in which pigments and layers of transparent varnishes are built up on the canvas, intimating dimension as well as deep and variegated gradients of shadow and light. Pondering his large oil paintings of nudes, it's just about impossible to assign to it any overtly Oriental gestures. Technically, Wang's work brings to mind the European masters."
4. McCloud, Kathleen (1996-05-24). "Wang mixes Western methods with Eastern ideas. From classical to abstract" (pages 1 and 2). The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Stuck as a visiting scholar, somewhere between faculty member and student, he transferred to Fontbonne College in St. Louis. He received a master's degree in fine arts and currently teaches painting, drawing and design there. Now, he contends that he could return to China, but with an American wife and a daughter, he prefers to remain in the United States and teach."
5. Deer, Karen (2007-07-28). "Bring Local Art Into". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "His process - Large scale paintings - His dramatic figure subjects present engaging and enigmatic experiences for viewers. The large scale painterly pieces include small, subtle collage references to Wang's Chinese heritage."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Victor Wang to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and the page is obviously a Keep on a brief look. Not understanding why this was nommed but at least it gives a chance to do some editing on it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Lesniowski

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

Student fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage presented for subject or drag alter-ego Saltina Shaker. Tagged for notability in March, no notability has emerged since. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source I find the the Ottawa Citizen article already referenced, a total of 2 hits in GNews Canada, mostly in passing (one being a list of performances in a local newspaper). Likely too soon for this person to have an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Science and Technical College, Orozo

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

I PRODed this along with other mass-produced stubs on Nigerian schools. Deprodded on the basis that the sources in this article are better than they are for most other schools in this creation run. The first source us substantial but the second is a 404 and the third is a passing mention. I didn’t find anything else so this is not a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A school that 'prepares young boys and girls for the future' - well, whoda thunk it? Fails WP:GNG, one article about a dispute doesn't get us past general notability and schools are, altogether now, not inherently notable. Best
Delete. If notability isn't inherited from just being a school, then there is nothing that keeps this article in the notable category. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Stanley

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL. City council member of a medium-small city, no coverage outside of local area. MB 05:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Texas. MB 05:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting inclusion guidelines for politicians. City council members in a city this size need strong coverage in publications far from the city, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen anything on the standards for notability which requires significant coverage outside of the city, but, if that is the usual standard used elsewhere, I have no objection. AJLooMNoS (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- With a city council member we will be able to find at least some newspaper coverage for almost every member of a city council everywhere, but that is not going to be enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amarillo is not in the narrow class of cities where a city councillor would usually get an automatic presumption of notability — that's for internationally prominent global cities on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto or London, not for every city council on earth. At Amarillo's level, we do indeed need to see a much wider range of coverage, establishing a reason why the person could credibly claim to be significantly more notable than most other city councillors, but that's not being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NPOL. The only coverage I find is either related to his election or routine reports of activities in his current role. The award does not convey notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MDRN Rockstars

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. There is little in the article about the company, it is mostly about the background of the founder. The sources lack in-depth coverage, containing only minor mentions. The Arizona Republic article also is mostly about the background of the founder with not much on this very young company. MB 05:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Arizona. MB 05:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero notability evidenced in the article or online. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. I find nothing for sourcing other than a mention on nba.com about some wear they designed for an event. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Bugler

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

Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:GNG. Credited as a "script writer" on 13 episodes of All My Children and one episode of As the World Turns. They seem to have found success outside of television, and I don't see much of a career writing soap operas that would confer notability. One news blurb appears to be a human interest story about her cancer diagnosis. Novemberjazz 03:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've improved the article. It was a mess, like a CV, mostly sourced from indeed.com. I have not found significant independent coverage. She maybe has a pass as WP:ANYBIO with two award nominations, but she is one of many writers proposed for a writing award, maybe an industry award, maybe a trade association, I'm not sure yet. She might get a pass at WP:CREATIVE criterion 3 for her writing on a well-known work, in fact as I write this, she probably does. But I'll wait to see what others say before !voting. CT55555 (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see how meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Contact me if something like a few significant reviews of her work are found - I couldn't see any in my brief search. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Breast Cancer Advocate & Writer on a Notable Soap Opera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not citing policy, you're just listing her jobs. Do you understand how this process works? Novemberjazz 02:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You Have gone on Nearly every Edit or Deletion Page and Opposed me, When I say "Keep" you say delete, when I add an office you remove it, You are Being Shamelessly Petty; Get a Life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 08:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please sign your comments and refrain from personal attacks, you can file a complain if they're harassing you. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Breast cancer survivor is nothing notable, otherwise she's a writer on a tv show with little to no sourcing to support it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review article after recent improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much for sourcing that we can use, certainly not anything to support notability. Breast cancer survivor is great but doesn't confirm notability in any way here. The support groups she's founded are too small/local to be of any consequence here either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I commented above, have been watching the votes, which have helped me conclude she is not notable. CT55555 (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recent improvements do not amount to a pass in notability. SWinxy (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

What discussion there is here is remarkably indifferent to the article's existence, but since nobody really wants to keep this around, I guess soft delete is the most appropriate outcome. Sandstein 11:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vern Hughes

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is a perennial Australian political candidate. I was initially a "week keep" when the article was PRODed a month ago given some mainstream media coverage of his many, many campaigns over many years. However, it seems from the article history that the subject may object to having an article on the basis of his only claim to notability, and wants an article on his decidedly non-notable work in his day job. Given that, I'm inclined to err on the side of getting rid of it entirely.

(For reference, I was one of the primary people arguing for "keep" in the first AfD nomination a decade ago, which was also affected by the nominator being a sockpuppet of a banned user, and the second nomination was an attempt to relitigate the outcome a week later.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is the subject still editing the article? The one listed on the talk page hasn't edited since 2007 but there are a few IP edits I can see that make some odd changes. If they're no longer editing and there's notability derived from the perennial candidature then I woudld be inclined to revise the article to focus on what they are actually notable for (which does look like it includes some independent sourcing). If there's consensus that there is a notability issue overall, then I accept deletion may be appropriate, but at the moment I am a bit concerned about the principle of deleting an article primarily on the basis of the subject's wishes. Deus et lex (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a very recent edit or two that seemed to be either from the subject or someone closely associated with them and objecting to the focus on their political candidacies, and I was of the view that it wasn't worth a content dispute to keep the material that gives him a borderline case for notability in the article if the subject objected to it. I was the strongest keep vote in the first AfD years back and in hindsight I'm not sure why - there's some coverage, but at best it could be said to barely surpass WP:GNG, and I wouldn't disagree now with the several people who assessed it as falling short. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My view is delete simply based on lack of reaching notability threshold. I wouldn’t think you get on wiki simply by being a perennial candidate. But that said I’m not a particular follower of Vic politics and defer to others of greater experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponyshine (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 World U23 Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Men's single

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

Per WP:NOTDATABASE and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Estonia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Delete all non notable bowling events. Articles fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. All sources listed are WP:PRIMARY, and a Google search of 2022 World U23 Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships turns up nothing that could be considered GNG-worthy. Frank Anchor 15:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Conference. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annual conferences

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

I have been to plenty of annual conferences, and the term primarily means a conference that is annual. It should redirect there, rather than having an article, and any discussion of the kinds of things listed on the disambiguation page should also go there. BD2412 T 03:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for Annual conferences to become a redirect to Conference. The article originally was specific to Methodist Church annual conferences. I renamed this to Annual conferences within Methodism so that the article title was more closely related to its contents, leaving Annual conferences as a redirect, but I then amended the redirect page to be a disambiguation page, using another example of a type of conference which is held annually. Clearly there must be hundreds of other types of conference held annually and I am not minded to list them all on a disambiguation page. There were still an number of Methodist Church and related articles which linked to Annual conferences. I have updated some of these and BD2412 appears to have done the others (thanks).

I appreciate your flexibility on the matter. BD2412 T 21:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 03:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to conference. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Devas Club. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Devas

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

Fails WP:GNG, no news sources at all. Founder of a charity club, which is not notable either, appears to be a promotional article. Hadal1337 (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable activist, philanthropist, and historical club founder. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Devas Club which makes up the great majority of his notability. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Devas Club, assuming that article is kept at AFD. If that article is deleted, then this article should be deleted, as no valid merge target would exist. And he doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow the AfD for Devas Club to reach its conclusion and therefore determine whether the proposed merger is viable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Rather than relist a 3rd time, I'm ruling this as No Consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finswimming at the 2022 World Games – Men's 100 m surface

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

This individual competition fails WP:NSEASON and WP:GNG. Raval77 seems to be using Wikipedia in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST for this content. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they each cover similar non-notable events:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the content should be kept in some form. These events can be considered as "competing in finswimming at the highest international level" as the World Games are the Olympics for non-Olympic sports. I think individual articles are ok but I can see them being merged (e.g., as done for Archery at the 2017 Southeast Asian Games – Results) if there is consensus for that. - Simeon (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles pass WP:NSEASONS as the World Games are as Simeon said "the Olympics for non-Olympic sports". The event is organised with the International Olympic Committee, the IOC President visited the games, and there is some crossover in other sports between the World Games and the Olympics such as the archer Brady Ellison. A quick search of Google and Google News got me at least 6 news articles. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence these individual articles pass WP:GNG. I don't see how WP:NSEASONS applies, as that's meant for articles about seasons of individual sports teams, not for individual events at a multi-event competition. Finswimming at the 2022 World Games can cover these event results in adequate detail. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo – Eine Familie sticht zu

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

Does not appear to be a notable television series, both this page and the German page seem to be sourced entirely to IMDb, and a search brought up only database listings and sites where you can purchase it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Germany. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Sultan

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

High-ranking Taliban commander. Extent of notability unclear. Mooonswimmer 01:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University Rover Challenge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BYU Mars Rover

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

Seems to be a case of WP:Recentism. Very little reliable source exists about the rover, though I do think it can be merged into University Rover Challenge. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Utah. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should probably be merged into the University Rover Challenge article. Fredjikrang (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @CactiStaccingCrane if there is non-overlapping content it should be merged into University Rover Challenge. Not ready for mainspace as standalone. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is merged it shouldn't be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with Jawad that it should be merged into University Rover Challenge. SWinxy (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 03:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goblins (webcomic)

AfDs for this article:

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

The awards stated are not major industry awards per WP:NWEB. One of them was just an honor given by a convention one year. The only secondary sources are Sequential Tart (flagged as unreliable) and what appears to be a single person's blog. I found no reliable sources whatsoever in a WP:BEFORE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – Besides the Sequential Tart article, which was discussed here without a specific conclusion, I found this Ars Technica listicle as a reliable source. There's also this Comix Mix article, but I don't know about that one either ^_^; – I will add that Goblins was nominated for an Aurora Award this year as well, but I don't know about the significance of this. I'll be really sad to see this article go :( ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep, but a substantial rewrite would be needed. This is a winner of the Aurora Awards. (It's also been nonminated again this year, with winners yet to be announced.) Winning a well-known award such as this is a way to establish notability under the specific notability criteria for web content. Based on this and a few other pieces of coverage, I personally would be comfortable considering this subject notable. That said, the quality of the article is poor, with much unsourced material that might fall foul of the requirements for biographies of living persons. If kept, it should be substantially cut back and/or rewritten. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. IMHO winning a notable award (AA) is sufficient to estabilish weak notability. That said, I acknowledge that per prior discussions, this is not an obvious reading of WP:GNG. Nonetheless, combinining this with cited coverage (AT, etc.) does amount to borderline notability in my book. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to see if we can avoid a weak no-consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Kopp

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

This article simply fails WP:NPROF.

I PROD'd this article as it is a clear cut case and received an endorsement for the PROD. However the PROD was removed as "incomming (sic) links indicate potential importance" - I do not believe this to be true. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mr Kopp is a prolific writer of commentary, generally self-published or published in relatively low quality military magazines, but has not been the subject of any coverage that I've seen. His views on Australian defence policy have had no influence that I'm aware of. It is unclear whether his professional qualifications are relevant to the focus of his commentary on Australian defence policies (though he's obviously entitled to his opinions) Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He "was" a writer? What happened since and why is it notable? I find nothing to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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