Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 07 March 09 >

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 keep. There's no consensus to delete the content. A possible merger does not require an additional relist. Star Mississippi 02:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Bulla cake

Bulla cake (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dosen't comply with WP:GNG, as there aren't any reliable "'published"' sources to support the object (possible sources are mostly blogs). And according to WP:NOTE and WP:V, "if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article" (from WP:NOTE). I came to conclude that this article should be deleted as it dosen't comply with the guidlines. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ( 🗣️💬 | 📖📚) 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ( 🗣️💬 | 📖📚) 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ( 🗣️💬 | 📖📚) 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ( 🗣️💬 | 📖📚) 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Possible sources include the government of Jamaica, as this is a staple item of the NPL menu in schools, at least according to an UNFAO report on school feeding programmes in Jamaica ( ISBN  9789251343975 page 94) that came up when I looked for this. Uncle G ( talk) 23:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or merge to List of Jamaican dishes. While acknowledging the difficulty in sourcing this article, I do think that food articles in general are vulnerable to systemic bias in terms of source availability, and it's always been of some surprise to me that an WP:SNG has not developed for food articles. The most convincing news article about bulla cakes would probably be this article from the Jamaica Gleaner about its removal from school lunches. Its presence in the Afro-Caribbean diet is corroborated in the Multicultural Handbook of Food, Nutrition, and Dietetics. Besides these references, a Google Books search indicates that bulla cakes are mentioned frequently in Jamaican cookbooks and in Jamaican literature as a quintessential part of Jamaican life, which leads me to believe that bulla cakes might be a victim of obscurity through ubiquity. This doesn't necessarily satisfy GNG per se, but it does indicate that the encyclopedia is not impoverished in having information about bulla cakes, whether in stand alone form or merged into the main List of Jamaican dishes. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or merge to List of Jamaican dishes. The sources presented by Uncle G and Bibliomaniac15 seem to indicate a documented cultural resonance. Merge before delete, please. BusterD ( talk) 20:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So... are we keeping or merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I really think this is a case of WP:BEFORE. There is a full article on the subject of how to make Bulla cookies in the Wall Street Journal, of all places: [1]. As User:Bibliomaniac15 points out, The Gleaner, Jamaica's newspaper of record, has an article [2] deploring that "Bullas [are] to be removed from schools", and another one here [3]. A quick glance at google news has plenty of other articles from WP:RS where Bulla cakes are not the main subject, but a significant part of, or mentioned in, the article: [4], [5] [6]. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 15:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/bulla-cookies-11607122606
  2. ^ https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20180823/bullas-be-removed-schools-tufton-appeals-support-teachers-help
  3. ^ https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20181006/reid-defends-removal-bullas-schools
  4. ^ https://www.post-gazette.com/life/dining/2015/02/26/Munch-goes-to-Leon-s-Caribbean-Restaurant-Warrenington-Avenue-Allentown-section-of-Pittsburgh/stories/201502260021
  5. ^ https://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140505/cleisure/cleisure3.html
  6. ^ https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/jamaican-native-brings-tastes-of-the-island-to-spring-hill/2211305/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Azerbaijan—Rwanda relations

Azerbaijan—Rwanda relations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to these relations, no agreements, no embassies, and trade is very tiny at USD601. There has been routine visits by ambassadors but no state visits. LibStar ( talk) 23:32, 8 March 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 23:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Joan Cowick

Joan Cowick (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. Per IMDB, had a single uncredited role in 1939. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:11, 8 March 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Dorothy Jenkin

Dorothy Jenkin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Nb, the one text (Conversations with Dorothy Jenkin) that would appear to provide significant coverage is self-published and written for/with/by Jenkin’s daughter as a memorial piece and therefore not independent. —  HTGS ( talk) 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

These two sources look good for establishing notability: [1] [2]. I can't access either as my local library is shut due to covid, but I'll see what I can do. -- Prosperosity ( talk) 23:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Well-sourced plus the inclusion of work in a major museum. User:Gamaliel ( talk) 02:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Meets requirements of significant coverage when including references mentioned above. Another major article in a reliable source : [3] -- haminoon ( talk) 03:35, 9 March 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. Nomination withdrawn by proposer. Nthep ( talk) 10:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Kirkby train crash

Kirkby train crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One person suffered minor injuries when a train ran the buffers at the end of a platform. This sort of thing happens a lot, so it is hardly a noteworthy incident. Now it is clear, following conclusion of the prosecution, that it wasn't even serious enough for the driver to be jailed, it underlines the non-notability and this simply falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Suggest it should be deleted, but merge some of the content into Merseyrail and/or Kirkby railway station. 10mmsocket ( talk) 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Prosecutions of railway staff following railway accidents in the UK are extremely rare. There's Quintinshill, Wootton Bassett, and this one. There was also a prosecution after Great Heck, but not of railway personnel. It was the prosecution which shoved this one well above the notability threshold, and the reason the article should be kept. Mjroots ( talk) 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

COMMENT it is clear already that there is already strong consensus to keep the article, so I am more than happy for this AfD to be closed. -- 10mmsocket ( talk) 08:45, 9 March 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! 00:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Spot News 18

Spot News 18 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non a notable company. Fails to have WP:RS sources. Juggyevil ( talk) 21:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC) (sock strike — DaxServer ( t · c) 11:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)) reply

  • Keep I have done much research and published it on Wikipedia as a Wikipedia contributor. And during my research, I have found that this website is popular in India, and they also have readers around the world. They have also been featured on many websites. I have only mentioned a few in the sources. As per Wikipedia guidelines, this article satisfies all the requirements on Wikipedia.-- 998ashish ( talk) 04:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC) (sock (see SUL) strike — DaxServer ( t · c) 08:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep I disagree with Juggyevil ( talk), it's a notable company, and they have been mentioned by other renowned news and media companies. Such as ZEE5, Latestly and My Nation. They have a WP:RS reliable and trusted source. Recheck their sources, and very it all the sources are very popular. So I request Wikipedia to keep this article on their platform. And protect this page from getting edited or modified to safeguard the article because the uncreassy changes are done on this article, which affects the article's trustworthiness on Wikipedia. -- Sunilyadav457 ( talk) 10:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC) (sock strike — DaxServer ( t · c) 09:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)) reply
  • Noting that 99ashish is locked, and Sunilyadav457 has no edits outside this topic. Best, Vermont ( talk) 00:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 8 March 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. This is a BLP for whom no independent, reliable source coverage apart from the cockfighting, her family has been identified, and as such we cannot keep it. There is "sourcing" but not of the BLP complaint variety to address BLP1E issues. Given sourcing concerns, I am deleting but have no objection should someone create a redirect to either of the options Star Mississippi 02:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Princess Irina of Romania

Princess Irina of Romania (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability except for being her father's daughter, and a possible claimant to the currently non-existing throne of Romania. Most sources currently in the article are self-published by the subject's family. Third-party sources only refer to her among her father's daughters. The only other independent sources mentioning her are related to a petty crime she committed, which does not warrant a separate article per WP:CRIMINAL. Desired outcome is merging salvageable info into Michael I of Romania#Family or Romanian royal family#Descendants of King Michael. Anonimu ( talk) 21:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: regarding the claims that there are many independent sources regarding the subject of article, if you believe this to be the case, please indicate at least a few of them and indicate how exactly they "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Anonimu ( talk) 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Which is the policy that says so? And no, it doesn't meet GNG, as most sources are NOT "Independent of the subject" and the independent ones do NOT have "Significant coverage". Anonimu ( talk) 11:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:COMMONSENSE, an elaboration of WP:IAR, which is a policy. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
There are tons of descendants of royals out there, should we have an article for each of them, against WP:GNG? Anonimu ( talk) 15:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
How did "children" suddenly morph into "descendants"? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
How are children of non-reigning monarchs different from "descendants"? Could you point to the policy that says we should apply WP:IAR only to children of non-reigning monarchs, but not to other descendants? Anonimu ( talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Children are descendants, of course, but descendants covers far more people than children does. Most people are probably descended from a monarch somewhere along the way. You comment was There are tons of descendants of royals out there, should we have an article for each of them... No, we shouldn't and I didn't say we should. We don't need a policy about a policy! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Anonimu: A friendly reminder to not WP:BLUDGEON the process. It is not expected that you reply to every !vote in this discussion. Also, what you consider "family drama" has been reported in RS, as shown in the article linked above about getting her titles back (and also when she was stripped of them). -- Kbabej ( talk) 16:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
As the main argument seems to be that there is in-depth coverage about here in RS, I will keep replying to such arguments until actual proof is provided. Anonimu ( talk) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Anonimu: Certainly you did a WP:BEFORE on this before nominating? There's her arrest as reported by the BBC here; there's not attending her mother's funeral here; there's her regaining her titles in Bunte here; the coverage continues. As a member of a royal family, she is high profile individual and gets coverage as such. -- Kbabej ( talk) 16:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Should we discard WP:CRIMINAL then? BTW, Bunte is a gossip magazine, not a WP:RS. Anonimu ( talk) 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
So is People, and it's on our list of good sources per WP:RSP. Can you show where Bunte isn't considered a RS? -- Kbabej ( talk) 19:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I think Bbabej has made the case. The illegal cock-fighting incident was covered in significant detail by the BBC and the Oregonian. Ficaia ( talk) 09:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:MONARCH. VocalIndia ( talk) 03:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ VocalIndia: The only sentence of WP:MONARCH relevant to this article is "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone." -- JBL ( talk) 23:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ JayBeeEll: Check it again WP:MONARCH, — But persons who are active in their capacity as a member of a royal house or as a holder of a title of nobility will often receive media coverage for it, which may help establish their notability according to the general notability guideline.. Thanks VocalIndia ( talk) 20:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ VocalIndia: Yes, exactly: such people must "establish their notability according to the general notability guideline", i.e., no special considerations apply to them. -- JBL ( talk) 20:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above discussion, and my own standards. ("Spouses and minor children of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention.") Her charity work, her own jobs, and the cockfighting scandal make her notable. Bearian ( talk) 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are basically two questions that need to be asked. Is there coverage in third-party sources? Yes; whether it be because of her position or her criminal activity. Does she have the same level of notability as her sisters? Yes. Usually we establish notability on a case-by-case basis, but with royalty their whole claim to notability is based on their ancestry and relations. That is why it’s absurd to claim that she’s not notable but her sisters are. Keivan.f Talk 16:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Nobody claimed that. As a matter of fact, once this is done I am going to follow with AfD on each of her sisters, except Margareta, as none have notability on their own. Anonimu ( talk) 16:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Then you’ll most likely be wasting a lot of editors time. There’s not a single delete !vote on here, and her sisters are even more involved in royal affairs and patronages. — Kbabej ( talk) 23:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Pretenders to thrones and their families are an interesting subject. BTW she is in the line of succession to the British throne, but too remote to be notable as such. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It is a real shame that the !votes above are so incredibly poor quality, and I hope that the closer takes note of the complete lack of a compelling policy rationale in them. I have just taken a quick look at the article and its sources. After removing a section sourced only to obviously non-RS pages (some random self-published monarchy fan-site), there are 9 footnotes that point to English-language sources. Of these
    1 is a dead-link to people.com, whose title suggests it is only incidentally about Irina, and
    the remaining 8 all concern the cock-fighting story.
  • So as far as the English-language sources go, this could not be a more clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. I do not have time right now to attempt to assess the Romanian-language sources, but if this has not been closed (and really, despite the lop-sided vote, it should be relisted, given that none of the Keep !voters have articulated anything that resembles a defense of notability based on community norms) I hope to return tomorrow to thoroughly dissect them. -- JBL ( talk) 15:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • People only has this to say "Irina, 36, who raises horses with her husband, John Krueger, in Oregon, just returned from a two-week visit with her parents." That's all.
    Romanian sources are mostly self-published by Irina's family ("Royal family of Romania"), with two exceptions:
    - Adevarul - This is the most detailed independent source regarding Irina. Note however that the article, published in August 2013, includes a word-by-word translation of the Marriage section of the Wikipedia article as of July 2013. The rest is about her criminal venture and her visiting her parents.
    - Romania Libera is exclusively about the criminal proceedings, and has only this info unrelated to the crime: "Principesa Irina, în vârstă de 60 de ani, s-a născut şi a crescut în Elveţia şi s-a mutat în Oregon în 1983." ("Princess Irina is 60 years old, was born and raised in Switzerland and moved to Oregon in 1983").
    Anonimu ( talk) 16:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the response so far has been overwhelmingly "Keep", an opposing editor asked for a relisting and for those advocate Keep to comment on the quality of the sources, specifically, both those in English and those that are not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep New to this AfD. Clear notability as evidence by extensive coverage. Also, WP:SNOWBALL. Atchom ( talk) 23:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Extensive coverage must be proven. As it stands know, we have coverage mostly limited to her criminal convictions. Please indicate the sources where we can find such extensive coverage. Anonimu ( talk) 08:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • delete We have a strong precedent of deleting these royals-in-pretence, especially the more collateral they are. The legal issues are sourced from relatively local media, and I'm inclined to draw the curtain of WP:BLP over them. Mangoe ( talk) 03:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Thanks Liz for allowing more time to do a proper source analysis. I'm going to refer to the sources in this (perma-link) version of the article, before I removed some content, to be maximally inclusive. Here is a detailed analysis:
Detailed analysis collapsed for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Footnotes 1, 2, 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 all concern the cockfighting charges
  • Footnotes 3, 23, 24, and 25 are to casamajestatiisale.ro/, a website that is apparently controlled by the subject or her family
  • Footnote 4 is about her father; I confirm Anonimu's statement that there is exactly one sentence of the article about Irina.
  • Footnotes 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are to romaniaregala.ro, a website that is apparently controlled by the subject or her family
  • Footnote 15 is "Queen Victoria's Descendants (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1987), page 190", used to source the parentage of her husband; I think we can be confident that it doesn't have anything substantive to say about Irina without needing to drag a copy out of the library.
  • Footnote 16 is a ridiculous self-published hobbyist page of royal genealogies, which is not RS and has nothing substantive about Irinia
  • And footnote 8 is titled "Who is Princess Irina, arrested in the USA for organizing illegal cockfights?", and whatever substantive things it has to say about her are plagiarized from Wikipedia.
  • In summary, the article is a gross violation of WP:BLP1E: aside from the cockfighting, it includes a total of 0 sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and substantive. Meanwhile, the arguments offered by the Keep !voters consist entirely of unsupported assertions, not in keeping with any established Wikipedia consensus, guideline, or policy -- a trout to all of them (except Bearian, who is at least honest about it). Deleting this article will make Wikipedia better. Incidentally, if this article is kept (which it absolutely should not be), it must be retitled: the only RS sources are the news articles about the cockfight, which call her "Irina Walker", and per WP:NCROY we should "not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use." -- JBL ( talk) 12:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This article does not meet the third condition for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. In this case, there are multiple articles from reputable news sources that go into quite decent detail about the cock-fighting affair ( 1), ( 2), ( 3), ( 4), etc., which combined with her status as the daughter of a former monarch make her notable as a quirky "royal crim" whose unusual crime received coverage by the BBC, HuffPost, Bunte, and the Oregonian (plus Romanian sources). Ficaia ( talk) 07:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    No, this is utterly standard crime coverage: anyone accused of a moderately unusual crime will have a few small waves of coverage, at arrest, trial, and conviction. That's still one event (the crime & trial; in Irina's case, it includes the incredibly silly spectacle of her sister removing her from a non-existent line of succession), and that's all we're seeing here. To make the case for a non-BLP1E, you seed a piece of significant coverage that is not primarily about the cock-fight and its immediate aftermath. (It would also be nice if people who edited "monarchy" articles cared at all about the quality of sourcing -- I haven't gotten into it too much because it's not the reason this article should be deleted, but people leaning in heavily on gossip magazines and HuffPo should really be re-evaluating their life choices.) -- JBL ( talk) 11:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Also I think it's really telling that (as you point out) the sources go into much more detail about the crime itself ("the cock-fighting affair") than they do about Irina herself -- that's because she is not independently notable of this story. -- JBL ( talk) 12:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply
People can become notable for committing a rare or unusual crime in combination with an unusual background. In this case, both the crime and criminal were unusual enough for the media to consider her notable and produce quite a lot of coverage. Therefore, the subject does not meet the third condition for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. Ficaia ( talk) 06:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
This is not a rare or unusual crime, it's bog-standard. Rare or unusual crimes get more than utterly routine crime coverage, which is what this is. There are 0 in-depth sources about her in the entire pile. -- JBL ( talk) 12:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The BBC source in particular tips this over the line for me. It's not a passing reference; it's multiple paragraphs in a British article about a foreign event. There is definitely not "relatively local media" as one editor above argues. Ficaia ( talk) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, the nominator is wrong in that the original story from the Oregonian also got re-published by a few other news sources, not all of which were local -- but it's not separate reporting about her, it's a piece about the same crime. This is extremely common with crime stories that have a mildly salacious aspect -- and it does not do anything to move it past BLP1E. -- JBL ( talk) 14:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She easily meets WP:GNG. Don't forget about Romanian newspapers. GorgonaJS ( talk) 10:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Checked Romanian newspapers, still couldn't find anything to support her notability per GNG. Anonimu ( talk) 11:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Hi GorgonaJS. This is a bare assertion; you might as well have written "She easily can fly to the moon" as far as providing an argument is concerned. Please see Ficaia's comments to see what form an argument "She meets GNG" should have, namely, you should point out which criteria of GNG are met by which sources. (Of course Ficaia is wrong about their assertions, but I point you to them because they are the only Keep so far who has attempted an argument that this person / article meets a community standard for notability, rather than make an unsupported assertion of it.) -- JBL ( talk) 12:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      DWC LR and Kbabej both make sound arguments too, as I hope the closer will recognise. Ficaia ( talk) 14:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      DWC LR's argument is literally "look some non-RS gossip rag wrote a piece about her", it doesn't come close to addressing any of the points of GNG (and it certainly doesn't rebut the BLP1E problem). -- JBL ( talk) 14:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Articles from the BBC, HuffPost and others mean the subject doesn't meet the third condition for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. The subject has to meet all three conditions to be excluded. Ficaia ( talk) 14:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
It is extremely common for an article of a mildly salacious crime to be reprinted in several different outlets (for example because of syndication through AP); that is not what a "significant event" is for the purpose of BLP1E. -- JBL ( talk) 15:53, 11 March 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 Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's eight. Unlikely another relist is going to generate consensus that differs given outcome of similar discussions. Consensus, slim as it is, is unanimous. Star Mississippi 02:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Guus van Ditzhuyzen

Guus van Ditzhuyzen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We do not have any significant coverage of Ditzhuyzen, only mention on one sports statistics website. As a non-medalist in the Olympics he does not meet our notability guideline. I search on newspapers.com and found absolutely nothing. Also google news and google books indicated no sources at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I did a quick search on delpher.nl, the search engine for 20th century dutch newspapers, journals, magazines and books. There are a few mentions of mr. van Ditzhuyzen, or van Ditzhuijzen (y and ij are interchangeable in dutch). His name is mentioned in rowing competitions around 1928. Still, coverage is not really significant. I agree with Lugnut´s recommendation to redirect. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy keep, no valid deletion rationale given, nominator blocked indefinitely for advertising. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The Red Paintings

AfDs for this article:
The Red Paintings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would like to request a deletion of this artist page. I am the article subject, I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and the artical/page to be deleted. Many of the items included have been fabricated with an excessive amount of contributors and edits. Thanks Trash McSweeney. Theredpaintings ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

— Duplicate vote: Theredpaintings ( talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. - This is a duplicate vote by the nominator. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There are procedures for dealing with an article about yourself, which typically involve a request to administrators; see WP:BIOSELF and WP:AUTOPROB. As for Red Paintings, the band got media coverage that satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for notability, so their article is useful for readers. If it contains inaccuracies they can be cleaned up without deleting the article. It definitely needs to be pared down to remove non-notable trivia. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Another Comment - The band also has (by my count) seven album articles in Wikipedia, so if the band's article is deleted then we will have to take care of the albums too. Articles: Angel Flummox, Cinema Love, The Virgin Mary Australian Tour Acoustic/Strings Album, Walls (EP), Destroy the Robots, Feed the Wolf, The Revolution Is Never Coming. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (but clean up) - After investigating their history to inform my two comments above, I can conclude that the band has a healthy amount of media coverage while on tour and some reliable reviews of some of their albums. The article should be pared down to remove a lot of insignificant trivia, and some of their album articles could probably be redirected to the band article. If the nominator is concerned about inaccurate or private info in the article, that can be removed rather easily. Having the article is useful for WP readers as long as it is cleaned up, and I hereby volunteer to do it myself. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G5. ✗ plicit 23:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Zenepe Pirani

Zenepe Pirani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, also made by a banned sock. LockzZ ( talk) 21:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:LONGEVITY. Being the oldest person in a particular country or region at any one point of time does not necessarily merit an individual article for the subject. The fact that this article was made by a banned sock surely means it should be auto deleted without the need for a discussion surely? @ Bbb23:? -- Jkaharper ( talk) 04:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

European Huntington's Disease Network

European Huntington's Disease Network (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In every version since 2011, this has been sourced in the main to the organization's own WWW site, and peripherally to articles, some by Landwehrmeyer, that are about Huntingdon's disease itself and study results. Looking around, I cannot actually find anything that isn't press releases, the organization's own WWW site, regurgitations of the organization's own WWW site (helpfully marked as from the organization's own WWW site), interviews with Landwehrmeyer, or Landwehrmeyer writing about this. The world just hasn't independently documented this.

The fact that there's just been an edit war over how the article isn't true because it no longer matches the organization's own WWW site is just the icing on the cake when it comes to indications that no-one has documented this but the organization itself and its founder. If the sole source of truth is autobiographical, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Uncle G ( talk) 21:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Desert Riders

Desert Riders (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed. Absolutely non-notable team, not even backed up by sources. Fails WP:NCRIC, WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. StickyWicket ( talk) 19:34, 8 March 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. Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Narda E. Alcorn

AfDs for this article:
Narda E. Alcorn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE signed, Willondon ( talk) 19:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I have asked numerous times to have this page removed. The person in question, Narda E. Alcorn, my wife of 21+ years, has asked for my help in removing the page. Here is a link to the text: https://www.flickr.com/gp/shelli/in6eYp

I have deleted it twice, but people unbeknownst to Narda or me keep putting it back up. It's really none of their business, and if the person wants it removed, it should be removed.

Thank you, Shelli

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

World Divyang T10

World Divyang T10 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:NCRIC via WP:OFFCRIC. References are just WP:ROUTINE at best and WP:PROMOTION at worst. Fails wider WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. StickyWicket ( talk) 19:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Neiwei railway station

Neiwei railway station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have significant coverage; per WP:STATION#Stations, should not have a standalone article. Redirect to Western Trunk line. Ajshul <talk> 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I think deleting this article would make Wikipedia worse as it would break the sequence in the "adjacent stations" template making navigation more confusing, and would also mean we lose the location data so the station would no longer appear in the "nearby articles" feature on mobile. NemesisAT ( talk) 19:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Has significant coverage:
I also agree with what Nemesis said, WP:RAILOUTCOMES notes that heavy-rail stations usually get kept here, and I would expect something with more thought put into it than just Does not have significant coverage for a station AfD. This is also the main railway line in Taiwan, it would be unthinkable to attempt to AfD a railway station article on the East Coast Main Line for example. Jumpytoo Talk 21:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC) edited 00:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Western Trunk line, fails GNG. For all the editors who religiously point to RAILOUTCOMES every time a train station microstub is nominated for deletion, please remember that RAILOUTCOMES is not a policy, while GNG very much is. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    How does deleting a railway station article improve Wikipedia? Letting railway stations pass if there is verifiable information on them is an easy rule that avoid continued discussion over whether the tens of thousands of station articles we have are notable, and provides consistency across the project. NemesisAT ( talk) 23:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    It improves Wikipedia by removing crap like this article from mainspace. From NSTATION: "If enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, then it may be appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For proposed or planned stations, historic railways stations that only existed briefly, or stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on." Even you have to admit the article at present is not even close to comprehensive. Therefore at this time it does not merit a separate article. You know what provides consistency across the project? Enforcing GNG, and not massively bending the rules for things like train stations for no good reason. How about you try citing a policy for once, instead of providing reflexive excuses to retain things clearly unfit for mainspace? As I said before, RAILOUTCOMES is not a policy or even a guideline. From the editnotice at the top of this page: "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements". If you wish to persuade people, try expanding the article so that it meets GNG and NSTATION. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 23:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    As useful as it is, GNG is anything but consistent as it depends on the interpretations of reliable, independant, and significant coverage. I am not providing excuses, I have explained why I think keeping all railway station articles improves Wikipedia. Per WP:IAR, this is valid.
    That being said, the station does pass GNG with the Yahoo News article and the 臺灣公論報 article. NemesisAT ( talk) 00:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Further coverage:
NemesisAT ( talk) 23:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Nominated for speedy deletion while I was writing this. bonadea contributions talk 18:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Edsong

Edsong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC and no sources to show general notability. A WP:BEFORE search yields nothing independent.

This was created by an editor who has been blocked for UPE, and was draftified but moved back to mainspace without any changes, by an editor who made 10 minor edits and waited 4 days. The musician could still be notable, but since there is no sign of that, this is pretty much just a promotional effort. bonadea contributions talk 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid rationale for deletion given. (non-admin closure) Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Tonse

Tonse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In fact a hidden removal of an article. That article was bad, that is true, but to my opinion the arguments given make no sense. (Discussion before restoring after an undiscussed removal, unsourced while sources are there, creating link to disambiguation pages while refusing to fix them etc.) The Banner  talk 17:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Disambiguations, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination resulting from an edit war. Deletion is not the answer to a content dispute. Spinning Spark 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, valid dab, no reason for deletion. MB 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep as a DAB page. As I have said repeatedly on the talk page, if the nominator had provided reliable sources to back up any of the content in the article, I would have thanked them for it and gone away. Instead they spent all of yesterday casting aspersions at me, dodging the idea of sourcing, and are now resorting to wasting the time of others with this absurd AfD. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Article, not dab. Guys, nobody is arguing for deletion, so "speedy keep" makes no sense. The page obviously doesn't work as a dab because "T(h)onse" isn't an ambiguous term. Tonse East and Tonse West aren't two unrelated places that just happen – by a miraculous coincidence – to be named as though they were the eastern and western parts of a single thing. As far as I'm able to tell from looking at a map and a random set of google hits, Tonse is a single, sprawling, settlement that for administrative purposes is divided into two (and possibly more) units. The article on that settlement was turned into a disambiguation page with the rationale, expressed on the talk page, that Thonse doesn't exist as a legal entity. I don't think that makes sense: London, for example, didn't have legal existence between 1986 and 2000, but if Wikipedia was around at the time I doubt anyone would have argued for London to be a disambiguation page simply listing the boroughs. Wikipedia's coverage of populated places shouldn't be organised around an enumeration of census tracts or municipal bodies, but on geographically and culturally meaningful entities, like villages and towns (it doesn't hurt to have coverage of census tracts, but that shouldn't happen at the expense of coverage of actual towns). If there's any change to be made, then that would be for the two Tonse stubs (and probably others, like Kemmannu and Hoode Beach) to be merged into Tonse. – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Do you actually have any actual reliable substantive references to back up these assertions, or are you just making assumptions based on what you saw on Google Maps? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    You're asking for a reliable and substantive reference for the assertion that Tonse East is the eastern bit of Tonse? – Uanfala (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I mean, yes! If it's not a legal entity, it doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND automatically, so there needs to be some manner of sourcing in order to demonstrate that it meets the second bullet point of GEOLAND regarding populated places without legal recognition. Otherwise you're just looking at a map and making an assumption that might very well be incorrect. By analogy: the cities of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam have similar names, and if you looked at them on a map without knowing otherwise, you might think they were the eastern and western parts of a single thing, because they're smashed up against each other. Except they aren't, they're distinct cities that have never been the same city, and writing an article titled Greater Coquitlam that discussed both of them as a single entity would be incorrect. For all we know, given the complete absence of sourcing, the same goes for Tonse. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    The sources I had looked at were these [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Are they great? No, but they demonstrate that a place with the name exists and has coverage online; I don't think you can expect better online English sources for a random village in India. Do these pages say that Tonse is made up of Tonse East and Tonse West? No, but they have little reason to go into details about the structure of local government; relevant here is this community Facebook page: obviously that wouldn't qualify as an acceptable source, but the fact that what is says in the "About" section matches the description in the Wikipedia article is an indication that this description isn't seen as complete nonsense by the locals. – Uanfala (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Just close this misplaced discussion. What should happen is that the article is left alone and protected if necessary (it doesn't matter if it is the wrong version because there's no reason for the next step to last more than a few days) and the talk page discussion continues calmly and without accusations. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:52, 9 March 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. Fenix down ( talk) 22:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Benfica F.C.

Benfica F.C. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is confusing. I found reference to the team on Soccerway, but with only two seasons of results, despite a claimed 1961 founding. They're not on Premier League site and I am unable to verify continued existence or that they were notable, or even that they were relegated. Without the latter, can't even ID a merger target. Star Mississippi 17:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Skoarding

Skoarding (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since 2013. No reliable hits located on a search. Sounds like something some guy made up one day to me. Ineligible for PROD, proposed deletion in 2013 with similar rationale was contested by creator. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Kambriel

Kambriel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fashion deisgner, barely any RS, fails GNG. Winner of Gothic Beauty's 2005 Fashion Designer of the Year award is also not a notable award. Chrisalder ( talk) 16:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Château Ka

Château Ka (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, barely any RS, fails GNG Chrisalder ( talk) 16:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Kosovar Party

Kosovar Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any source for the existence of this party or its leader Aden Rugova. This article was added in 2008, so the "last election" should mean the 2007 Kosovan parliamentary election or 2004 Kosovan parliamentary election but there is no information about this party which is supposed to have "won 10% of votes". I tried Albanian search terms such as "Partia e Kosovës, Aden Rugova" but couldn't find anything. HTinC23 ( talk) 16:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wasp Man

Wasp Man (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any sources mentioning the show, not even on the SBS website. Hoax? Paradoctor ( talk) 16:33, 8 March 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. There is absolutely no chance that this will be deleted at this time regardless of whether it should be per policy. Consensus is so strong that a no consensus would not fly, but this could probably be revisted in a timelime similar to that of a no consensus once the war is not a current event. Star Mississippi 02:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Vitaly Gerasimov

Vitaly Gerasimov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual per WP:BIO1E. The only significant coverage this person receives is about his alleged death in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The article makes no notable claims about this person, and no sources can be found prior to this week that confer notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 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. Fenix down ( talk) 22:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

2012–13 F.B.C. Unione Venezia season

2012–13 F.B.C. Unione Venezia season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia:NSEASONS, team played in the 4th division at the time. Sakiv ( talk) 15:19, 8 March 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 Camila (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Something's Gotta Give (Camila Cabello song)

Something's Gotta Give (Camila Cabello song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NSONGS. All sources (accept for charts and certifications in minor music markets) are from sources associated with its parent album Camila and should therefore be redirected there. LOVI 33 14:17, 8 March 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 moot. I'm re-opening and re-closing this discussion per WP:NACD following a challenge at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 2. The reasons for deletion (unverifiability) were valid and unaddressed at the time of the previous non-admin closure on 15 March 2022‎, and the AfD should have been properly been closed as "delete" at that time. However, these reasons for deletion have been addressed by a series of edits beginning on 4 April 2022‎, such that the article is no longer unsourced. The AfD discussion therefore no longer applies to the current state of the article, and accordingly I'm re-closing the AfD as moot. Sandstein 09:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Arabian Gulf rugby sevens team

Arabian Gulf rugby sevens team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced throughout it's existence as an article - there doesn't seem much likelihood of sources appearing after more than a decade since it apparently existed. Unbh ( talk) 09:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete with no prejudice as failing WP:V (which is a valid deletion reason). If somebody wants to bother restarting this from scratch with some actual encyclopedic information, and more importantly, with some source to back it up, then this is not going to be of much if any help, anyways (heck, this doesn't even say when or where exactly this side was active...) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Mk.gee

Mk.gee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Apart from the one NME article cited as a source, a search finds nothing even resembling RS sigcov. One album released, but not on any label (major or otherwise), therefore not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 10:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:26, 8 March 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! 00:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Xi Mingze

AfDs for this article:
Xi Mingze (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just being the daughter of Chinese president is not important enough to merit an article on its own. SochneyDe ( talk) 09:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Toei Tokusatsu Universe

Toei Tokusatsu Universe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely reliant on WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:FAN. Each of these franchises have cross-over specials of their own, but that doesn't mean they're part of a shared universe. The author is using speculation to connect dots to imply a conclusion. Additionally, the author fails to provide reliable sources confirming that these separate series are part of a shared universe, and fails notability. The article is a collection of assumptions and trivia that have no merit, nor supported by reliable sources. This article is just pure wishful thinking. Most of this information can already be found (and supported by verified sources) at the following articles: Kamen Rider, Super Sentai, and Metal Heroes. Armegon ( talk) 10:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

"I simply mentioned everything I know from exact movies and shows." That is the definition of your own original research. It's in complete violation of WP:OR. " It's true that Toei doesn't promote it as a shared universe." If Toei themselves don't call it a universe, then clearly this article doesn't pass notability, per WP:N and WP:NF. "Reliable sources are shows and movies (the original material)", the movies and shows are primary sources. WP:PRIMARY states to use secondary sources because primary sources can be misused and evaluated, interpreted, or synthesized. Which is exactly what you have done. WP:SECONDARY states "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source," and you have not provided any secondary sources to validate a supposed shared universe. Regarding that Toei Video link, you're seriously overreaching. "Universe" does not automatically mean shared cinematic universe. Based on that plot summary, the word "universe" is used to refer to the fate of the world. Hardly hard evidence to validate a shared universe. Armegon ( talk) 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't see any elementary logic in what you say. Delete it, if you want. Дейноніх ( talk) 19:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom - There are no actual reliable sources describing all of these shows as taking place in any kind of shared universe. The page creator, in their argument in this discussion, even stated that "It's true that Toei doesn't promote it as a shared universe. However, regular appearances of characters from past media does nothing but establishes it.", which is pure WP:OR. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and comment above as I'm not seeing any evidence on how this isn't WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As I person who watches anime here I know I can't just pick and choose characters to establish a point on Wikipedia. The characters need to be specifically stated in sources, and the fictional universe must meet notability. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:38, 9 March 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. Star Mississippi 02:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Tin Ching Estate

Tin Ching Estate (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect reverted without improvement or rationale. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, just routine. And contrary to some editors, 3 or 4 lines in an article is not in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 21:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 柯詠敏; 黃泳樺 (2016-11-03). "天水圍天晴邨：「百無」孤城催生居民抗爭　冀辦市集增歸屬感" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Tin Ching Estate has many places to rest, but the design is rigid and it is difficult to gather residents. ... Liu Huaqiang, 66, moved to Tin Ching Estate in 2008. At first, he felt that the air here is good and the environment is quiet, but after living there, he found that Tin Ching Estate was "nothing". ... Tin Ching Estate is located to the north of Tin Shui Wai, with a total of 16,000 residents in the third phase. However, the shopping mall in the village has only 8 shops, and only one Maxim's Fast Food has just been completed. Eight years later, there is only one more restaurant. It takes three years for a newly completed housing estate to be occupied before a mutual aid committee can be established, ... Apart from the lack of a market, there is a large road between Phases 1, 2 and 3 of Tin Ching Estate. At first glance, it looks like two separate housing estates. ... The planning of Tin Ching Estate has caused the residents to be separated from the housing estate, making life inconvenient and affecting their sense of belonging to the housing estate."

    2. 杜寶琪 (2008-09-30). "天水圍公屋建高球場浪費公帑". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Just like the newly completed Tin Ching, there are super luxurious equipment such as a golf course and a large-scale ground fountain; ... However, in Tin Shui Wai, Tin Ching, which was completed in May this year, the house design is different from the practical principles of the traditional housing construction of the HD. When our reporter inspected the house, he found that in addition to the general house facilities, it was rare to have a golf course and a ground fountain with a diameter of nearly ten meters. The golf course is about half the size of a basketball court, with six holes covered by artificial grass, but the golf course and ground fountains are not fenced and fenced. If residents drive high waves on the golf course, they will hit residents and vehicles passing by at any time."

    3. Less significant coverage:
      1. 馮國豪 (2010-10-30). "怪蟲襲天晴邨 居民恐慌". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "The Tin Ching Estate Children's Playground has turned into a terrifying insect paradise, where small insects that look like centipedes appear in groups day and night. ... Residents are worried that the insect army will secrete venom, threatening the safety of children playing in the playground. A district councilor pointed out that there was a "worm disaster" in the housing estate, but the Housing Department did not take action for a long time."

      2. "挺身抗議同工不同酬 天晴邨清潔工：只想拎返自己應有嘅嘢". 獨立媒體 (in Chinese). 2020-10-06. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "Sister Rong and Sister Shi, the cleaners in their 50s, have been working in Tin Ching Estate since the opening of the village in 2008. They have been working diligently and conscientiously. They criticized the outsourcer, Yaju, for ignoring the plight of the workers."

      3. 柯詠敏 (2018-07-19). "【天水圍2.0．四】天晴邨有個「門常開」：不做蛇齋餅糉的互委" (in Chinese). HK01. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "There is also a "door always open" in a corner of Tin Ching Estate. Walking into the Mutual Aid Committee of Qingyun Building, ... Looking at Tin Ching Estate, there are many grass-roots families and elderly people, but the village has only a single-storey shopping mall with less than ten shops, which is difficult to meet the living needs of the residents. ... 42-year-old Tin Ching Estate is one of the many new immigrant women in Tianqing Village."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tin Ching Estate ( Chinese: 天晴邨) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I think the coverage given above is enough to work as evidence of notability. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 14:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The most mediocre of articles. Lets look at the non-references above, also mediocre to the extreme, the most common things, there are many grass-roots families and elderly people difficult to meet their needs like in every other place on the planet that undergoing fast change. threatening the safety of children playing in the playground. The very definition of the precuationary principle, again routine and mediocre to the extreme, used everywhere to protect chilren in playgronds. The absolute lowest most mediocre definition of what counts as notable. This defintion that is offered here as significant, offers no differetiation between what is notable and what is not. It breaks the barrier of what is consider special. It elevates the mediocre to specialness, the very worst kind of idea. What it means, is that every single thing on earth, even the most blaise and mediocre will come into Wikipedia. scope_creep Talk 22:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
And the references and the references in the article are primary. scope_creep Talk 22:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Scope creep said, "This defintion that is offered here as significant" and listed two quotes from the sources I posted: "there are many grass-roots families and elderly people difficult to meet their needs" and "threatening the safety of children playing in the playground". These two quotes come from the "Less significant coverage" section of my list of sources. I agree that these quotes amount to less significant coverage which is why I included them in the "Less significant coverage" section. Tin Cheng Estate has received significant coverage in the first two sources I listed. Cunard ( talk) 22:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 8 March 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 Country Music Association Awards. Sandstein 09:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Country Music Association Award for International Achievement

Country Music Association Award for International Achievement (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be a notable award. Only sources are WP:PRIMARY or just PR pieces stating that a given artist won the award. Delete or merge with Country Music Association Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 8 March 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. Specifically, there is consensus against deleting the article, but there is no consensus on whether it should remain standalone or be merged or redirected. Further relisting this discussion to attempt to establish such a consensus does not appear meritorious to me; anyone who would like to take further editorial action on the article is free to do so, such as by establishing a consensus on the talk page, or simply following WP:BB. Stifle ( talk) 14:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Appleton Transit Center

Appleton Transit Center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. The two sources are about a 2019 shooting. SL93 ( talk) 23:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure merging mostly unreferenced content to another article is a good idea, even if the target article is unreferenced. I will support a merge if the content is referenced. SL93 ( talk) 23:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
NemesisAT Did you find any coverage beyond the routine coverage from Appleton's local newspaper The Post-Crescent? The sources about the shooting certainly show no notability. SL93 ( talk) 01:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Almost all the coverage I found was in The Post-Crescent. However, that doesn't mean we haven't passed WP:GNG, which does not forbid local coverage. Please see the source table below. NemesisAT ( talk) 14:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I disagree because multiple news articles from one newspaper is still one source. The shooting articles don't help because shootings can occur anywhere. SL93 ( talk) 14:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The articles are written by multiple journalists over a period of over twenty years. And even if you do want to count them as one source, an article can be kept on the basis of one substantial source and that is what you get if you combine the content of all the Post-Crescent articles. NemesisAT ( talk) 14:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I have no idea where you received the information that one substantial source is enough. Of course the local news covered it throughout the years. Local news always does that for local interests that remain for years. I could flood Wikipedia with almost any establishment I wish to create articles on if that showed notability. SL93 ( talk) 23:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
"Of course the local news covered it throughout the years." Hence why it is notable. This is not a small village, Appleton has a population of 75,000. A bus terminus serving 75,000 people is worthy of an article here, in my opinion. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF, if you have enough sources then go ahead, write this articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no space limit. NemesisAT ( talk) 23:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
In the hundreds of AfDs I have participated in over the years, I still highly disagree with you based on the results of those AfDs. I really don't care if it's a small village or a large city. I can't go ahead with those articles because I know the end results. SL93 ( talk) 00:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply
We will have to just disagree. SL93 ( talk) 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=96069122&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjI4OTM5Nzg4NywiaWF0IjoxNjQ1NTM3ODMyLCJleHAiOjE2NDU2MjQyMzJ9.tr27CSUwQzzG8i9xS2-GVkXCgrY-C-2HziPj5G46MRM Yes Third-party analysis Yes The Post-Crescent is a long-running daily newspaper Yes Article focuses on the transit centre ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96165393/mayor-proposes-6-million-transit-center/ Yes Third-party analysis Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96071325/cheaper-to-build-new-transit-center/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96072964/new-smaller-transit-centre-backed/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96065802/bus-transfer-center-is-finally-complete/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://eu.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/23/end-era-greyhound-ends-bus-service-north-milwaukee/1727249002/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/16/us/wisconsin-firefighter-killed-medical-call/index.html Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://eu.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2019/05/16/appleton-shooting-what-we-know/3690802002/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ 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}}.
WP:SIR is clearly linked by mistake. A bus station isn't a company so WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't apply. Also, did you follow me here after your recent ANI edit? NemesisAT ( talk) 18:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Scope creep: did you follow me here? NemesisAT ( talk) 11:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 8 March 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Malcolm Davies (classicist)

Malcolm Davies (classicist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not really much familiar with Academics' notability criteria, but upon a cursory look, this person lacks in-depth coverage which are independent of the subject. There's only one source, which is auto-biography. Tame ( talk) 08:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

This scholar is obviously reputable, given the publishers they use. I would prefer this discussion were handled by someone familiar with classics. Nonnus49 ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
It's also not auto-biography, it's an official Oxford profile. Nonnus49 ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Khushali Kumar (actress)

Khushali Kumar (actress) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this page fails NP:Actor and GNG. She is only known as she is a daughter of Gulshan Kumar and as a sister of several notable people. She is not a notable fashion designer, yet to launch her acting career. This page has been multiple times created by undisclosed paid editor of her team under the name, Khushali Kumar, Khushali Kumar Dua and this time by name Khushali Kumar (actress). If any subject is notable as she or he is a daughter of notable people, every child of notable people should have a page. The page needs to be salted, this page has been rejected min 5 times on AFC and finally moved to mainspace by a socketpuppet, who is blocked on Wikipedia. I am sure, you will be finding a lot of paid editors who will be voting keep and we need to keep an eye on them. Chrisalder ( talk) 07:06, 8 March 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! 06:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Shifra Smart Homes

Shifra Smart Homes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Nothing in gnews for its English and Arabic names. Plain google search just shows directory listings. Possible WP:PROMO. LibStar ( talk) 06:33, 8 March 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 Rajoo Dada. Sandstein 09:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Aankhon Ke Saamne

Aankhon Ke Saamne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced, one of myriad articles created by Rajesh. And Wiki is not a database. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 8 March 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 Jonathan Davis. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Sexart

Sexart (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

insignificant footnote, only significance is that former member went on to form Korn. this band seems to be not very noteworthy otherwise, and probably would be better served as a footnote in the Korn article than have its own. Band never released a commercial recording, only recorded 15 songs, none of which were released to public. Discography pretty much empty other than several paragraphs explaining that they didn't do anything but home-record the songs. half the article talks about the band Sexart morphed into afterwards (Supermodel) SleighBellz1980 ( talk) 06:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jonathan Davis, where they are already discussed as one of his early endeavors. This article is a desperate attempt to make the band look historically important, when in reality they had one member who became famous without them later. (They are also briefly mentioned as an early stop for Ryan Shuck, who joined some other notable bands later as well.) The article is almost entirely dependent on sources that are actually about Davis and Korn, and the "Accolades" section is entirely about Korn's accomplishments with their overhauled version of one of Sexart's early demos. Sexart accomplished nothing notable on its own, nor did its successor band Supermodel. There is nothing to see here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 8 March 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.

At 02:44 today, User:AssumeGoodWraith, a non-administrator, closed this debate as no consensus. In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I, an administrator, have vacated this closure. I did so because I considered the closure to be in error. All opinions suggesting keeping the article were from users who are unregistered or have a conflict of interest, and they should be given little weight.

When considering the closure in the round, the result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Erich Holt Stem

Erich Holt Stem (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Opaqueambiguity ( talk) 05:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: Washington Post is an American newspaper source that is deemed credible, as is the West Virginia paper, and A Closer Listen doesn't look like a massive mag, but it stands as a credible source owned by a cadre of music critics.17:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.249.120.118 ( talk)

Simply being mentioned once in a credible source does not indicate notability. The WaPo article appears to be just a routine review of a local concert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.168.118 ( talk) 02:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: In addition to Wapo, West Virginia Gazette, and A Closer Listen, composer also has noteworthy mentions in two referenced "I Care if You Listen" articles, the Julliard Journal, and work with New Dynamic Records reviewed in Classical Music Daily and Time Out New York. These sources pass the "significant coverage" test as they go beyond trivial mentions of the composers's work, even if some of the sources' main content examines the work of other artists in the same article (also acceptable under the Significant Coverage test). Improvement to or updating the article could perhaps help the demonstration of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdynamicrecords ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Note that the previous "keep" was submitted by an account that was one of the primary authors of the original article, and has the username "New Dynamic Records" which is the name of the record label operated by Dr. Stem himself via his position at Indiana University. Most likely this is Dr. Stem's own contribution to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.168.118 ( talk) 20:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

 Renamer note: Newdynamicrecords has been renamed to JamesViolin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 03:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

How long does this discussion have to stay open? This is an obvious delete, fails all criteria for notability. This discussion has been relisted 3 times with almost zero discussion because nobody knows who he is and nobody cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.144.36 ( talk) 16:20, 14 March 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. Stifle ( talk) 10:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Aloha (web browser)

Aloha (web browser) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Most of the references are to store pages, the product's site, or unrelated information. A WP:BEFORE resulted mostly in download links and forum discussions. Found a couple reviews but those appear to be very run-of-the-mill stuff. Isabelle 🔔 00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 8 March 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 08:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Yu Nga Court

Yu Nga Court (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage is simply routine, not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 林穎嫺 (2022-02-19). "居屋2022｜東涌裕雅苑三座享機場海景　兩成單位3房2廁料即買即住" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      The article provides many paragraphs of coverage about Yu Nga Court. The article notes from Google Translate: "Yu Nga Court is located at No. 8, Yi Tung Road, Tung Chung extension area. There are 6 blocks in total, providing a total of 3,300 units. It is the largest housing estate in this phase. The unit area ranges from 272 to 555 square feet. It is estimated that the key date is September 30 this year. It is believed that it can be used as an existing building for sale. When prospective owners choose a flat at the end of the year, they are expected to "buy and live". ... Yu Nga Court is the largest of the HOS flats put on sale in this phase, and it will also have more supporting facilities."

    2. "新居屋｜東涌裕雅苑部分可望機場海景 提供約300停車位". Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2022-02-18. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "The new phase of HOS housing, Tung Chung Yu Nga Court, is located in the Tung Chung reclamation area, with a total of 3,300 units being sold, which is the project with the most units for sale in this phase. Each building is 32 storeys high, blocks A to D provide 570 units respectively, and blocks E to F provide 510 units respectively. The estimated key date of the development project is September 30, 2022, which means that the project is almost sold as an existing building."

    3. 陳梓蔚 (2022-02-18). "【居屋2022】北角驥華苑開則四方可望海　東涌裕雅苑平均呎價最低即買即住". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Tung Chung Yu Nga Court offers a total of 6 blocks of 3,300 units, with unit sizes ranging from 272 square feet to 555 square feet. The temporary selling price is from 1.3 million to 5.55 million yuan; the average square foot price is 5,730 yuan."

    4. "新居屋東涌裕雅苑伙數最多　大單位設2浴室　9月收樓料即買即住". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2022-02-18. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      From Google Translate: "Among them, there are 6 blocks in Yu Nga Court, Tung Chung, which provides about one-third of the units. Some units even have two bathrooms, which is a rare residential property in recent years. ... Among the many projects, the key date for Tung Chung Yu Nga Garden is September 30 this year. It is expected that the buyer can buy and live immediately, and it will be Kai Yan Garden in Kai Tak at the latest. The key date is December 31, 2024."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yu Nga Court ( Chinese: 裕雅苑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Spanish Trail Playhouse

Spanish Trail Playhouse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sourced to its website. Local community theater. Searching finds routine mentions in local media - announcements of productions. No in-depth coverage in RS, does not meet WP:GNG. MB 04:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Melody MacDonald

Melody MacDonald (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

only one citation presented and I cannot find other reliable info about her. Caphadouk ( talk) 04:18, 8 March 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 03:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Cabuyao Poblacion

Cabuyao Poblacion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:VERIFY in question. The City of Cabuyao and its baranggays exists but these "districts" might not. WP:BEFORE search just points to Wiki mirrors. Also,

-- Lenticel ( talk) 02:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Central District, Cabuyao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western Cabuyao District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aplaya, Cabuyao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mamatid District, Cabuyao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Lenticel ( talk) 02:54, 8 March 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 03:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Parulia High School

Parulia High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. WP:PROD was contested. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 02:11, 8 March 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 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Maikel Pérez

Maikel Pérez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MMA notability criteria; doesn't have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he been ranked in the world top 10 of his division. WP:GNG is also failed, most of his coverage is through routine sporting reports. Also competed at the 2008 summer olympics but did not win a medal. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 00:04, 8 March 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Violet Apisah

Violet Apisah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extensive junior career but does not meet WP:NTENNIS. Runner up in junior grand slam is close but not enough. LibStar ( talk) 00:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

That's still an essay. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Tennis is considered the notability standard which does not include Fed Cup. LibStar ( talk) 01:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
There are many many tennis player articles which are based of their participation in Fed Cup / Davis Cup competition. If you delete this one, I also suggest you go through many of the other thousand articles and delete those too for consistency. Keroks ( talk) 12:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I intend to do this soon when I have the time. Many of these Fed/Davis Cup-only players have no possibility for any reasonable expansion. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:09, 9 March 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_8&oldid=1079437168"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 07 March 09 >

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 keep. There's no consensus to delete the content. A possible merger does not require an additional relist. Star Mississippi 02:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Bulla cake

Bulla cake (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dosen't comply with WP:GNG, as there aren't any reliable "'published"' sources to support the object (possible sources are mostly blogs). And according to WP:NOTE and WP:V, "if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article" (from WP:NOTE). I came to conclude that this article should be deleted as it dosen't comply with the guidlines. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ( 🗣️💬 | 📖📚) 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ( 🗣️💬 | 📖📚) 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ( 🗣️💬 | 📖📚) 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ( 🗣️💬 | 📖📚) 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Possible sources include the government of Jamaica, as this is a staple item of the NPL menu in schools, at least according to an UNFAO report on school feeding programmes in Jamaica ( ISBN  9789251343975 page 94) that came up when I looked for this. Uncle G ( talk) 23:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or merge to List of Jamaican dishes. While acknowledging the difficulty in sourcing this article, I do think that food articles in general are vulnerable to systemic bias in terms of source availability, and it's always been of some surprise to me that an WP:SNG has not developed for food articles. The most convincing news article about bulla cakes would probably be this article from the Jamaica Gleaner about its removal from school lunches. Its presence in the Afro-Caribbean diet is corroborated in the Multicultural Handbook of Food, Nutrition, and Dietetics. Besides these references, a Google Books search indicates that bulla cakes are mentioned frequently in Jamaican cookbooks and in Jamaican literature as a quintessential part of Jamaican life, which leads me to believe that bulla cakes might be a victim of obscurity through ubiquity. This doesn't necessarily satisfy GNG per se, but it does indicate that the encyclopedia is not impoverished in having information about bulla cakes, whether in stand alone form or merged into the main List of Jamaican dishes. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or merge to List of Jamaican dishes. The sources presented by Uncle G and Bibliomaniac15 seem to indicate a documented cultural resonance. Merge before delete, please. BusterD ( talk) 20:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So... are we keeping or merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I really think this is a case of WP:BEFORE. There is a full article on the subject of how to make Bulla cookies in the Wall Street Journal, of all places: [1]. As User:Bibliomaniac15 points out, The Gleaner, Jamaica's newspaper of record, has an article [2] deploring that "Bullas [are] to be removed from schools", and another one here [3]. A quick glance at google news has plenty of other articles from WP:RS where Bulla cakes are not the main subject, but a significant part of, or mentioned in, the article: [4], [5] [6]. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 15:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/bulla-cookies-11607122606
  2. ^ https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20180823/bullas-be-removed-schools-tufton-appeals-support-teachers-help
  3. ^ https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20181006/reid-defends-removal-bullas-schools
  4. ^ https://www.post-gazette.com/life/dining/2015/02/26/Munch-goes-to-Leon-s-Caribbean-Restaurant-Warrenington-Avenue-Allentown-section-of-Pittsburgh/stories/201502260021
  5. ^ https://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140505/cleisure/cleisure3.html
  6. ^ https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/jamaican-native-brings-tastes-of-the-island-to-spring-hill/2211305/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Azerbaijan—Rwanda relations

Azerbaijan—Rwanda relations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to these relations, no agreements, no embassies, and trade is very tiny at USD601. There has been routine visits by ambassadors but no state visits. LibStar ( talk) 23:32, 8 March 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 23:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Joan Cowick

Joan Cowick (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. Per IMDB, had a single uncredited role in 1939. Natg 19 ( talk) 23:11, 8 March 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Dorothy Jenkin

Dorothy Jenkin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Nb, the one text (Conversations with Dorothy Jenkin) that would appear to provide significant coverage is self-published and written for/with/by Jenkin’s daughter as a memorial piece and therefore not independent. —  HTGS ( talk) 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

These two sources look good for establishing notability: [1] [2]. I can't access either as my local library is shut due to covid, but I'll see what I can do. -- Prosperosity ( talk) 23:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Well-sourced plus the inclusion of work in a major museum. User:Gamaliel ( talk) 02:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Meets requirements of significant coverage when including references mentioned above. Another major article in a reliable source : [3] -- haminoon ( talk) 03:35, 9 March 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. Nomination withdrawn by proposer. Nthep ( talk) 10:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Kirkby train crash

Kirkby train crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One person suffered minor injuries when a train ran the buffers at the end of a platform. This sort of thing happens a lot, so it is hardly a noteworthy incident. Now it is clear, following conclusion of the prosecution, that it wasn't even serious enough for the driver to be jailed, it underlines the non-notability and this simply falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Suggest it should be deleted, but merge some of the content into Merseyrail and/or Kirkby railway station. 10mmsocket ( talk) 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Prosecutions of railway staff following railway accidents in the UK are extremely rare. There's Quintinshill, Wootton Bassett, and this one. There was also a prosecution after Great Heck, but not of railway personnel. It was the prosecution which shoved this one well above the notability threshold, and the reason the article should be kept. Mjroots ( talk) 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

COMMENT it is clear already that there is already strong consensus to keep the article, so I am more than happy for this AfD to be closed. -- 10mmsocket ( talk) 08:45, 9 March 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! 00:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Spot News 18

Spot News 18 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non a notable company. Fails to have WP:RS sources. Juggyevil ( talk) 21:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC) (sock strike — DaxServer ( t · c) 11:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)) reply

  • Keep I have done much research and published it on Wikipedia as a Wikipedia contributor. And during my research, I have found that this website is popular in India, and they also have readers around the world. They have also been featured on many websites. I have only mentioned a few in the sources. As per Wikipedia guidelines, this article satisfies all the requirements on Wikipedia.-- 998ashish ( talk) 04:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC) (sock (see SUL) strike — DaxServer ( t · c) 08:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep I disagree with Juggyevil ( talk), it's a notable company, and they have been mentioned by other renowned news and media companies. Such as ZEE5, Latestly and My Nation. They have a WP:RS reliable and trusted source. Recheck their sources, and very it all the sources are very popular. So I request Wikipedia to keep this article on their platform. And protect this page from getting edited or modified to safeguard the article because the uncreassy changes are done on this article, which affects the article's trustworthiness on Wikipedia. -- Sunilyadav457 ( talk) 10:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC) (sock strike — DaxServer ( t · c) 09:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)) reply
  • Noting that 99ashish is locked, and Sunilyadav457 has no edits outside this topic. Best, Vermont ( talk) 00:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 8 March 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. This is a BLP for whom no independent, reliable source coverage apart from the cockfighting, her family has been identified, and as such we cannot keep it. There is "sourcing" but not of the BLP complaint variety to address BLP1E issues. Given sourcing concerns, I am deleting but have no objection should someone create a redirect to either of the options Star Mississippi 02:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Princess Irina of Romania

Princess Irina of Romania (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability except for being her father's daughter, and a possible claimant to the currently non-existing throne of Romania. Most sources currently in the article are self-published by the subject's family. Third-party sources only refer to her among her father's daughters. The only other independent sources mentioning her are related to a petty crime she committed, which does not warrant a separate article per WP:CRIMINAL. Desired outcome is merging salvageable info into Michael I of Romania#Family or Romanian royal family#Descendants of King Michael. Anonimu ( talk) 21:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: regarding the claims that there are many independent sources regarding the subject of article, if you believe this to be the case, please indicate at least a few of them and indicate how exactly they "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Anonimu ( talk) 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Which is the policy that says so? And no, it doesn't meet GNG, as most sources are NOT "Independent of the subject" and the independent ones do NOT have "Significant coverage". Anonimu ( talk) 11:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:COMMONSENSE, an elaboration of WP:IAR, which is a policy. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
There are tons of descendants of royals out there, should we have an article for each of them, against WP:GNG? Anonimu ( talk) 15:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
How did "children" suddenly morph into "descendants"? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
How are children of non-reigning monarchs different from "descendants"? Could you point to the policy that says we should apply WP:IAR only to children of non-reigning monarchs, but not to other descendants? Anonimu ( talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Children are descendants, of course, but descendants covers far more people than children does. Most people are probably descended from a monarch somewhere along the way. You comment was There are tons of descendants of royals out there, should we have an article for each of them... No, we shouldn't and I didn't say we should. We don't need a policy about a policy! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Anonimu: A friendly reminder to not WP:BLUDGEON the process. It is not expected that you reply to every !vote in this discussion. Also, what you consider "family drama" has been reported in RS, as shown in the article linked above about getting her titles back (and also when she was stripped of them). -- Kbabej ( talk) 16:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
As the main argument seems to be that there is in-depth coverage about here in RS, I will keep replying to such arguments until actual proof is provided. Anonimu ( talk) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Anonimu: Certainly you did a WP:BEFORE on this before nominating? There's her arrest as reported by the BBC here; there's not attending her mother's funeral here; there's her regaining her titles in Bunte here; the coverage continues. As a member of a royal family, she is high profile individual and gets coverage as such. -- Kbabej ( talk) 16:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Should we discard WP:CRIMINAL then? BTW, Bunte is a gossip magazine, not a WP:RS. Anonimu ( talk) 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
So is People, and it's on our list of good sources per WP:RSP. Can you show where Bunte isn't considered a RS? -- Kbabej ( talk) 19:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I think Bbabej has made the case. The illegal cock-fighting incident was covered in significant detail by the BBC and the Oregonian. Ficaia ( talk) 09:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:MONARCH. VocalIndia ( talk) 03:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ VocalIndia: The only sentence of WP:MONARCH relevant to this article is "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone." -- JBL ( talk) 23:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ JayBeeEll: Check it again WP:MONARCH, — But persons who are active in their capacity as a member of a royal house or as a holder of a title of nobility will often receive media coverage for it, which may help establish their notability according to the general notability guideline.. Thanks VocalIndia ( talk) 20:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ VocalIndia: Yes, exactly: such people must "establish their notability according to the general notability guideline", i.e., no special considerations apply to them. -- JBL ( talk) 20:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above discussion, and my own standards. ("Spouses and minor children of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention.") Her charity work, her own jobs, and the cockfighting scandal make her notable. Bearian ( talk) 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are basically two questions that need to be asked. Is there coverage in third-party sources? Yes; whether it be because of her position or her criminal activity. Does she have the same level of notability as her sisters? Yes. Usually we establish notability on a case-by-case basis, but with royalty their whole claim to notability is based on their ancestry and relations. That is why it’s absurd to claim that she’s not notable but her sisters are. Keivan.f Talk 16:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Nobody claimed that. As a matter of fact, once this is done I am going to follow with AfD on each of her sisters, except Margareta, as none have notability on their own. Anonimu ( talk) 16:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Then you’ll most likely be wasting a lot of editors time. There’s not a single delete !vote on here, and her sisters are even more involved in royal affairs and patronages. — Kbabej ( talk) 23:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Pretenders to thrones and their families are an interesting subject. BTW she is in the line of succession to the British throne, but too remote to be notable as such. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It is a real shame that the !votes above are so incredibly poor quality, and I hope that the closer takes note of the complete lack of a compelling policy rationale in them. I have just taken a quick look at the article and its sources. After removing a section sourced only to obviously non-RS pages (some random self-published monarchy fan-site), there are 9 footnotes that point to English-language sources. Of these
    1 is a dead-link to people.com, whose title suggests it is only incidentally about Irina, and
    the remaining 8 all concern the cock-fighting story.
  • So as far as the English-language sources go, this could not be a more clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. I do not have time right now to attempt to assess the Romanian-language sources, but if this has not been closed (and really, despite the lop-sided vote, it should be relisted, given that none of the Keep !voters have articulated anything that resembles a defense of notability based on community norms) I hope to return tomorrow to thoroughly dissect them. -- JBL ( talk) 15:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • People only has this to say "Irina, 36, who raises horses with her husband, John Krueger, in Oregon, just returned from a two-week visit with her parents." That's all.
    Romanian sources are mostly self-published by Irina's family ("Royal family of Romania"), with two exceptions:
    - Adevarul - This is the most detailed independent source regarding Irina. Note however that the article, published in August 2013, includes a word-by-word translation of the Marriage section of the Wikipedia article as of July 2013. The rest is about her criminal venture and her visiting her parents.
    - Romania Libera is exclusively about the criminal proceedings, and has only this info unrelated to the crime: "Principesa Irina, în vârstă de 60 de ani, s-a născut şi a crescut în Elveţia şi s-a mutat în Oregon în 1983." ("Princess Irina is 60 years old, was born and raised in Switzerland and moved to Oregon in 1983").
    Anonimu ( talk) 16:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the response so far has been overwhelmingly "Keep", an opposing editor asked for a relisting and for those advocate Keep to comment on the quality of the sources, specifically, both those in English and those that are not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep New to this AfD. Clear notability as evidence by extensive coverage. Also, WP:SNOWBALL. Atchom ( talk) 23:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Extensive coverage must be proven. As it stands know, we have coverage mostly limited to her criminal convictions. Please indicate the sources where we can find such extensive coverage. Anonimu ( talk) 08:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • delete We have a strong precedent of deleting these royals-in-pretence, especially the more collateral they are. The legal issues are sourced from relatively local media, and I'm inclined to draw the curtain of WP:BLP over them. Mangoe ( talk) 03:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Thanks Liz for allowing more time to do a proper source analysis. I'm going to refer to the sources in this (perma-link) version of the article, before I removed some content, to be maximally inclusive. Here is a detailed analysis:
Detailed analysis collapsed for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Footnotes 1, 2, 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 all concern the cockfighting charges
  • Footnotes 3, 23, 24, and 25 are to casamajestatiisale.ro/, a website that is apparently controlled by the subject or her family
  • Footnote 4 is about her father; I confirm Anonimu's statement that there is exactly one sentence of the article about Irina.
  • Footnotes 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are to romaniaregala.ro, a website that is apparently controlled by the subject or her family
  • Footnote 15 is "Queen Victoria's Descendants (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1987), page 190", used to source the parentage of her husband; I think we can be confident that it doesn't have anything substantive to say about Irina without needing to drag a copy out of the library.
  • Footnote 16 is a ridiculous self-published hobbyist page of royal genealogies, which is not RS and has nothing substantive about Irinia
  • And footnote 8 is titled "Who is Princess Irina, arrested in the USA for organizing illegal cockfights?", and whatever substantive things it has to say about her are plagiarized from Wikipedia.
  • In summary, the article is a gross violation of WP:BLP1E: aside from the cockfighting, it includes a total of 0 sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and substantive. Meanwhile, the arguments offered by the Keep !voters consist entirely of unsupported assertions, not in keeping with any established Wikipedia consensus, guideline, or policy -- a trout to all of them (except Bearian, who is at least honest about it). Deleting this article will make Wikipedia better. Incidentally, if this article is kept (which it absolutely should not be), it must be retitled: the only RS sources are the news articles about the cockfight, which call her "Irina Walker", and per WP:NCROY we should "not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use." -- JBL ( talk) 12:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This article does not meet the third condition for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. In this case, there are multiple articles from reputable news sources that go into quite decent detail about the cock-fighting affair ( 1), ( 2), ( 3), ( 4), etc., which combined with her status as the daughter of a former monarch make her notable as a quirky "royal crim" whose unusual crime received coverage by the BBC, HuffPost, Bunte, and the Oregonian (plus Romanian sources). Ficaia ( talk) 07:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    No, this is utterly standard crime coverage: anyone accused of a moderately unusual crime will have a few small waves of coverage, at arrest, trial, and conviction. That's still one event (the crime & trial; in Irina's case, it includes the incredibly silly spectacle of her sister removing her from a non-existent line of succession), and that's all we're seeing here. To make the case for a non-BLP1E, you seed a piece of significant coverage that is not primarily about the cock-fight and its immediate aftermath. (It would also be nice if people who edited "monarchy" articles cared at all about the quality of sourcing -- I haven't gotten into it too much because it's not the reason this article should be deleted, but people leaning in heavily on gossip magazines and HuffPo should really be re-evaluating their life choices.) -- JBL ( talk) 11:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Also I think it's really telling that (as you point out) the sources go into much more detail about the crime itself ("the cock-fighting affair") than they do about Irina herself -- that's because she is not independently notable of this story. -- JBL ( talk) 12:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply
People can become notable for committing a rare or unusual crime in combination with an unusual background. In this case, both the crime and criminal were unusual enough for the media to consider her notable and produce quite a lot of coverage. Therefore, the subject does not meet the third condition for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. Ficaia ( talk) 06:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
This is not a rare or unusual crime, it's bog-standard. Rare or unusual crimes get more than utterly routine crime coverage, which is what this is. There are 0 in-depth sources about her in the entire pile. -- JBL ( talk) 12:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The BBC source in particular tips this over the line for me. It's not a passing reference; it's multiple paragraphs in a British article about a foreign event. There is definitely not "relatively local media" as one editor above argues. Ficaia ( talk) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, the nominator is wrong in that the original story from the Oregonian also got re-published by a few other news sources, not all of which were local -- but it's not separate reporting about her, it's a piece about the same crime. This is extremely common with crime stories that have a mildly salacious aspect -- and it does not do anything to move it past BLP1E. -- JBL ( talk) 14:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She easily meets WP:GNG. Don't forget about Romanian newspapers. GorgonaJS ( talk) 10:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Checked Romanian newspapers, still couldn't find anything to support her notability per GNG. Anonimu ( talk) 11:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Hi GorgonaJS. This is a bare assertion; you might as well have written "She easily can fly to the moon" as far as providing an argument is concerned. Please see Ficaia's comments to see what form an argument "She meets GNG" should have, namely, you should point out which criteria of GNG are met by which sources. (Of course Ficaia is wrong about their assertions, but I point you to them because they are the only Keep so far who has attempted an argument that this person / article meets a community standard for notability, rather than make an unsupported assertion of it.) -- JBL ( talk) 12:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      DWC LR and Kbabej both make sound arguments too, as I hope the closer will recognise. Ficaia ( talk) 14:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      DWC LR's argument is literally "look some non-RS gossip rag wrote a piece about her", it doesn't come close to addressing any of the points of GNG (and it certainly doesn't rebut the BLP1E problem). -- JBL ( talk) 14:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Articles from the BBC, HuffPost and others mean the subject doesn't meet the third condition for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. The subject has to meet all three conditions to be excluded. Ficaia ( talk) 14:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
It is extremely common for an article of a mildly salacious crime to be reprinted in several different outlets (for example because of syndication through AP); that is not what a "significant event" is for the purpose of BLP1E. -- JBL ( talk) 15:53, 11 March 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 Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's eight. Unlikely another relist is going to generate consensus that differs given outcome of similar discussions. Consensus, slim as it is, is unanimous. Star Mississippi 02:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Guus van Ditzhuyzen

Guus van Ditzhuyzen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We do not have any significant coverage of Ditzhuyzen, only mention on one sports statistics website. As a non-medalist in the Olympics he does not meet our notability guideline. I search on newspapers.com and found absolutely nothing. Also google news and google books indicated no sources at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I did a quick search on delpher.nl, the search engine for 20th century dutch newspapers, journals, magazines and books. There are a few mentions of mr. van Ditzhuyzen, or van Ditzhuijzen (y and ij are interchangeable in dutch). His name is mentioned in rowing competitions around 1928. Still, coverage is not really significant. I agree with Lugnut´s recommendation to redirect. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy keep, no valid deletion rationale given, nominator blocked indefinitely for advertising. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The Red Paintings

AfDs for this article:
The Red Paintings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would like to request a deletion of this artist page. I am the article subject, I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and the artical/page to be deleted. Many of the items included have been fabricated with an excessive amount of contributors and edits. Thanks Trash McSweeney. Theredpaintings ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

— Duplicate vote: Theredpaintings ( talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. - This is a duplicate vote by the nominator. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There are procedures for dealing with an article about yourself, which typically involve a request to administrators; see WP:BIOSELF and WP:AUTOPROB. As for Red Paintings, the band got media coverage that satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for notability, so their article is useful for readers. If it contains inaccuracies they can be cleaned up without deleting the article. It definitely needs to be pared down to remove non-notable trivia. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Another Comment - The band also has (by my count) seven album articles in Wikipedia, so if the band's article is deleted then we will have to take care of the albums too. Articles: Angel Flummox, Cinema Love, The Virgin Mary Australian Tour Acoustic/Strings Album, Walls (EP), Destroy the Robots, Feed the Wolf, The Revolution Is Never Coming. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (but clean up) - After investigating their history to inform my two comments above, I can conclude that the band has a healthy amount of media coverage while on tour and some reliable reviews of some of their albums. The article should be pared down to remove a lot of insignificant trivia, and some of their album articles could probably be redirected to the band article. If the nominator is concerned about inaccurate or private info in the article, that can be removed rather easily. Having the article is useful for WP readers as long as it is cleaned up, and I hereby volunteer to do it myself. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G5. ✗ plicit 23:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Zenepe Pirani

Zenepe Pirani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, also made by a banned sock. LockzZ ( talk) 21:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:LONGEVITY. Being the oldest person in a particular country or region at any one point of time does not necessarily merit an individual article for the subject. The fact that this article was made by a banned sock surely means it should be auto deleted without the need for a discussion surely? @ Bbb23:? -- Jkaharper ( talk) 04:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

European Huntington's Disease Network

European Huntington's Disease Network (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In every version since 2011, this has been sourced in the main to the organization's own WWW site, and peripherally to articles, some by Landwehrmeyer, that are about Huntingdon's disease itself and study results. Looking around, I cannot actually find anything that isn't press releases, the organization's own WWW site, regurgitations of the organization's own WWW site (helpfully marked as from the organization's own WWW site), interviews with Landwehrmeyer, or Landwehrmeyer writing about this. The world just hasn't independently documented this.

The fact that there's just been an edit war over how the article isn't true because it no longer matches the organization's own WWW site is just the icing on the cake when it comes to indications that no-one has documented this but the organization itself and its founder. If the sole source of truth is autobiographical, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Uncle G ( talk) 21:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Desert Riders

Desert Riders (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed. Absolutely non-notable team, not even backed up by sources. Fails WP:NCRIC, WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. StickyWicket ( talk) 19:34, 8 March 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. Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Narda E. Alcorn

AfDs for this article:
Narda E. Alcorn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE signed, Willondon ( talk) 19:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I have asked numerous times to have this page removed. The person in question, Narda E. Alcorn, my wife of 21+ years, has asked for my help in removing the page. Here is a link to the text: https://www.flickr.com/gp/shelli/in6eYp

I have deleted it twice, but people unbeknownst to Narda or me keep putting it back up. It's really none of their business, and if the person wants it removed, it should be removed.

Thank you, Shelli

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

World Divyang T10

World Divyang T10 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:NCRIC via WP:OFFCRIC. References are just WP:ROUTINE at best and WP:PROMOTION at worst. Fails wider WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. StickyWicket ( talk) 19:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Neiwei railway station

Neiwei railway station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have significant coverage; per WP:STATION#Stations, should not have a standalone article. Redirect to Western Trunk line. Ajshul <talk> 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I think deleting this article would make Wikipedia worse as it would break the sequence in the "adjacent stations" template making navigation more confusing, and would also mean we lose the location data so the station would no longer appear in the "nearby articles" feature on mobile. NemesisAT ( talk) 19:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Has significant coverage:
I also agree with what Nemesis said, WP:RAILOUTCOMES notes that heavy-rail stations usually get kept here, and I would expect something with more thought put into it than just Does not have significant coverage for a station AfD. This is also the main railway line in Taiwan, it would be unthinkable to attempt to AfD a railway station article on the East Coast Main Line for example. Jumpytoo Talk 21:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC) edited 00:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Western Trunk line, fails GNG. For all the editors who religiously point to RAILOUTCOMES every time a train station microstub is nominated for deletion, please remember that RAILOUTCOMES is not a policy, while GNG very much is. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    How does deleting a railway station article improve Wikipedia? Letting railway stations pass if there is verifiable information on them is an easy rule that avoid continued discussion over whether the tens of thousands of station articles we have are notable, and provides consistency across the project. NemesisAT ( talk) 23:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    It improves Wikipedia by removing crap like this article from mainspace. From NSTATION: "If enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, then it may be appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For proposed or planned stations, historic railways stations that only existed briefly, or stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on." Even you have to admit the article at present is not even close to comprehensive. Therefore at this time it does not merit a separate article. You know what provides consistency across the project? Enforcing GNG, and not massively bending the rules for things like train stations for no good reason. How about you try citing a policy for once, instead of providing reflexive excuses to retain things clearly unfit for mainspace? As I said before, RAILOUTCOMES is not a policy or even a guideline. From the editnotice at the top of this page: "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements". If you wish to persuade people, try expanding the article so that it meets GNG and NSTATION. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 23:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    As useful as it is, GNG is anything but consistent as it depends on the interpretations of reliable, independant, and significant coverage. I am not providing excuses, I have explained why I think keeping all railway station articles improves Wikipedia. Per WP:IAR, this is valid.
    That being said, the station does pass GNG with the Yahoo News article and the 臺灣公論報 article. NemesisAT ( talk) 00:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Further coverage:
NemesisAT ( talk) 23:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Nominated for speedy deletion while I was writing this. bonadea contributions talk 18:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Edsong

Edsong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC and no sources to show general notability. A WP:BEFORE search yields nothing independent.

This was created by an editor who has been blocked for UPE, and was draftified but moved back to mainspace without any changes, by an editor who made 10 minor edits and waited 4 days. The musician could still be notable, but since there is no sign of that, this is pretty much just a promotional effort. bonadea contributions talk 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid rationale for deletion given. (non-admin closure) Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Tonse

Tonse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In fact a hidden removal of an article. That article was bad, that is true, but to my opinion the arguments given make no sense. (Discussion before restoring after an undiscussed removal, unsourced while sources are there, creating link to disambiguation pages while refusing to fix them etc.) The Banner  talk 17:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Disambiguations, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination resulting from an edit war. Deletion is not the answer to a content dispute. Spinning Spark 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, valid dab, no reason for deletion. MB 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep as a DAB page. As I have said repeatedly on the talk page, if the nominator had provided reliable sources to back up any of the content in the article, I would have thanked them for it and gone away. Instead they spent all of yesterday casting aspersions at me, dodging the idea of sourcing, and are now resorting to wasting the time of others with this absurd AfD. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Article, not dab. Guys, nobody is arguing for deletion, so "speedy keep" makes no sense. The page obviously doesn't work as a dab because "T(h)onse" isn't an ambiguous term. Tonse East and Tonse West aren't two unrelated places that just happen – by a miraculous coincidence – to be named as though they were the eastern and western parts of a single thing. As far as I'm able to tell from looking at a map and a random set of google hits, Tonse is a single, sprawling, settlement that for administrative purposes is divided into two (and possibly more) units. The article on that settlement was turned into a disambiguation page with the rationale, expressed on the talk page, that Thonse doesn't exist as a legal entity. I don't think that makes sense: London, for example, didn't have legal existence between 1986 and 2000, but if Wikipedia was around at the time I doubt anyone would have argued for London to be a disambiguation page simply listing the boroughs. Wikipedia's coverage of populated places shouldn't be organised around an enumeration of census tracts or municipal bodies, but on geographically and culturally meaningful entities, like villages and towns (it doesn't hurt to have coverage of census tracts, but that shouldn't happen at the expense of coverage of actual towns). If there's any change to be made, then that would be for the two Tonse stubs (and probably others, like Kemmannu and Hoode Beach) to be merged into Tonse. – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Do you actually have any actual reliable substantive references to back up these assertions, or are you just making assumptions based on what you saw on Google Maps? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    You're asking for a reliable and substantive reference for the assertion that Tonse East is the eastern bit of Tonse? – Uanfala (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I mean, yes! If it's not a legal entity, it doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND automatically, so there needs to be some manner of sourcing in order to demonstrate that it meets the second bullet point of GEOLAND regarding populated places without legal recognition. Otherwise you're just looking at a map and making an assumption that might very well be incorrect. By analogy: the cities of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam have similar names, and if you looked at them on a map without knowing otherwise, you might think they were the eastern and western parts of a single thing, because they're smashed up against each other. Except they aren't, they're distinct cities that have never been the same city, and writing an article titled Greater Coquitlam that discussed both of them as a single entity would be incorrect. For all we know, given the complete absence of sourcing, the same goes for Tonse. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    The sources I had looked at were these [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Are they great? No, but they demonstrate that a place with the name exists and has coverage online; I don't think you can expect better online English sources for a random village in India. Do these pages say that Tonse is made up of Tonse East and Tonse West? No, but they have little reason to go into details about the structure of local government; relevant here is this community Facebook page: obviously that wouldn't qualify as an acceptable source, but the fact that what is says in the "About" section matches the description in the Wikipedia article is an indication that this description isn't seen as complete nonsense by the locals. – Uanfala (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Just close this misplaced discussion. What should happen is that the article is left alone and protected if necessary (it doesn't matter if it is the wrong version because there's no reason for the next step to last more than a few days) and the talk page discussion continues calmly and without accusations. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:52, 9 March 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. Fenix down ( talk) 22:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Benfica F.C.

Benfica F.C. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is confusing. I found reference to the team on Soccerway, but with only two seasons of results, despite a claimed 1961 founding. They're not on Premier League site and I am unable to verify continued existence or that they were notable, or even that they were relegated. Without the latter, can't even ID a merger target. Star Mississippi 17:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Skoarding

Skoarding (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since 2013. No reliable hits located on a search. Sounds like something some guy made up one day to me. Ineligible for PROD, proposed deletion in 2013 with similar rationale was contested by creator. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Kambriel

Kambriel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fashion deisgner, barely any RS, fails GNG. Winner of Gothic Beauty's 2005 Fashion Designer of the Year award is also not a notable award. Chrisalder ( talk) 16:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Château Ka

Château Ka (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, barely any RS, fails GNG Chrisalder ( talk) 16:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Kosovar Party

Kosovar Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any source for the existence of this party or its leader Aden Rugova. This article was added in 2008, so the "last election" should mean the 2007 Kosovan parliamentary election or 2004 Kosovan parliamentary election but there is no information about this party which is supposed to have "won 10% of votes". I tried Albanian search terms such as "Partia e Kosovës, Aden Rugova" but couldn't find anything. HTinC23 ( talk) 16:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wasp Man

Wasp Man (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any sources mentioning the show, not even on the SBS website. Hoax? Paradoctor ( talk) 16:33, 8 March 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. There is absolutely no chance that this will be deleted at this time regardless of whether it should be per policy. Consensus is so strong that a no consensus would not fly, but this could probably be revisted in a timelime similar to that of a no consensus once the war is not a current event. Star Mississippi 02:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Vitaly Gerasimov

Vitaly Gerasimov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual per WP:BIO1E. The only significant coverage this person receives is about his alleged death in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The article makes no notable claims about this person, and no sources can be found prior to this week that confer notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 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. Fenix down ( talk) 22:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

2012–13 F.B.C. Unione Venezia season

2012–13 F.B.C. Unione Venezia season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia:NSEASONS, team played in the 4th division at the time. Sakiv ( talk) 15:19, 8 March 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 Camila (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Something's Gotta Give (Camila Cabello song)

Something's Gotta Give (Camila Cabello song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NSONGS. All sources (accept for charts and certifications in minor music markets) are from sources associated with its parent album Camila and should therefore be redirected there. LOVI 33 14:17, 8 March 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 moot. I'm re-opening and re-closing this discussion per WP:NACD following a challenge at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 2. The reasons for deletion (unverifiability) were valid and unaddressed at the time of the previous non-admin closure on 15 March 2022‎, and the AfD should have been properly been closed as "delete" at that time. However, these reasons for deletion have been addressed by a series of edits beginning on 4 April 2022‎, such that the article is no longer unsourced. The AfD discussion therefore no longer applies to the current state of the article, and accordingly I'm re-closing the AfD as moot. Sandstein 09:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Arabian Gulf rugby sevens team

Arabian Gulf rugby sevens team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced throughout it's existence as an article - there doesn't seem much likelihood of sources appearing after more than a decade since it apparently existed. Unbh ( talk) 09:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete with no prejudice as failing WP:V (which is a valid deletion reason). If somebody wants to bother restarting this from scratch with some actual encyclopedic information, and more importantly, with some source to back it up, then this is not going to be of much if any help, anyways (heck, this doesn't even say when or where exactly this side was active...) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Mk.gee

Mk.gee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Apart from the one NME article cited as a source, a search finds nothing even resembling RS sigcov. One album released, but not on any label (major or otherwise), therefore not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 10:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:26, 8 March 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! 00:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Xi Mingze

AfDs for this article:
Xi Mingze (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just being the daughter of Chinese president is not important enough to merit an article on its own. SochneyDe ( talk) 09:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Toei Tokusatsu Universe

Toei Tokusatsu Universe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely reliant on WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:FAN. Each of these franchises have cross-over specials of their own, but that doesn't mean they're part of a shared universe. The author is using speculation to connect dots to imply a conclusion. Additionally, the author fails to provide reliable sources confirming that these separate series are part of a shared universe, and fails notability. The article is a collection of assumptions and trivia that have no merit, nor supported by reliable sources. This article is just pure wishful thinking. Most of this information can already be found (and supported by verified sources) at the following articles: Kamen Rider, Super Sentai, and Metal Heroes. Armegon ( talk) 10:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

"I simply mentioned everything I know from exact movies and shows." That is the definition of your own original research. It's in complete violation of WP:OR. " It's true that Toei doesn't promote it as a shared universe." If Toei themselves don't call it a universe, then clearly this article doesn't pass notability, per WP:N and WP:NF. "Reliable sources are shows and movies (the original material)", the movies and shows are primary sources. WP:PRIMARY states to use secondary sources because primary sources can be misused and evaluated, interpreted, or synthesized. Which is exactly what you have done. WP:SECONDARY states "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source," and you have not provided any secondary sources to validate a supposed shared universe. Regarding that Toei Video link, you're seriously overreaching. "Universe" does not automatically mean shared cinematic universe. Based on that plot summary, the word "universe" is used to refer to the fate of the world. Hardly hard evidence to validate a shared universe. Armegon ( talk) 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't see any elementary logic in what you say. Delete it, if you want. Дейноніх ( talk) 19:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom - There are no actual reliable sources describing all of these shows as taking place in any kind of shared universe. The page creator, in their argument in this discussion, even stated that "It's true that Toei doesn't promote it as a shared universe. However, regular appearances of characters from past media does nothing but establishes it.", which is pure WP:OR. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and comment above as I'm not seeing any evidence on how this isn't WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As I person who watches anime here I know I can't just pick and choose characters to establish a point on Wikipedia. The characters need to be specifically stated in sources, and the fictional universe must meet notability. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:38, 9 March 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. Star Mississippi 02:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Tin Ching Estate

Tin Ching Estate (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect reverted without improvement or rationale. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, just routine. And contrary to some editors, 3 or 4 lines in an article is not in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 21:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 柯詠敏; 黃泳樺 (2016-11-03). "天水圍天晴邨：「百無」孤城催生居民抗爭　冀辦市集增歸屬感" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Tin Ching Estate has many places to rest, but the design is rigid and it is difficult to gather residents. ... Liu Huaqiang, 66, moved to Tin Ching Estate in 2008. At first, he felt that the air here is good and the environment is quiet, but after living there, he found that Tin Ching Estate was "nothing". ... Tin Ching Estate is located to the north of Tin Shui Wai, with a total of 16,000 residents in the third phase. However, the shopping mall in the village has only 8 shops, and only one Maxim's Fast Food has just been completed. Eight years later, there is only one more restaurant. It takes three years for a newly completed housing estate to be occupied before a mutual aid committee can be established, ... Apart from the lack of a market, there is a large road between Phases 1, 2 and 3 of Tin Ching Estate. At first glance, it looks like two separate housing estates. ... The planning of Tin Ching Estate has caused the residents to be separated from the housing estate, making life inconvenient and affecting their sense of belonging to the housing estate."

    2. 杜寶琪 (2008-09-30). "天水圍公屋建高球場浪費公帑". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Just like the newly completed Tin Ching, there are super luxurious equipment such as a golf course and a large-scale ground fountain; ... However, in Tin Shui Wai, Tin Ching, which was completed in May this year, the house design is different from the practical principles of the traditional housing construction of the HD. When our reporter inspected the house, he found that in addition to the general house facilities, it was rare to have a golf course and a ground fountain with a diameter of nearly ten meters. The golf course is about half the size of a basketball court, with six holes covered by artificial grass, but the golf course and ground fountains are not fenced and fenced. If residents drive high waves on the golf course, they will hit residents and vehicles passing by at any time."

    3. Less significant coverage:
      1. 馮國豪 (2010-10-30). "怪蟲襲天晴邨 居民恐慌". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "The Tin Ching Estate Children's Playground has turned into a terrifying insect paradise, where small insects that look like centipedes appear in groups day and night. ... Residents are worried that the insect army will secrete venom, threatening the safety of children playing in the playground. A district councilor pointed out that there was a "worm disaster" in the housing estate, but the Housing Department did not take action for a long time."

      2. "挺身抗議同工不同酬 天晴邨清潔工：只想拎返自己應有嘅嘢". 獨立媒體 (in Chinese). 2020-10-06. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "Sister Rong and Sister Shi, the cleaners in their 50s, have been working in Tin Ching Estate since the opening of the village in 2008. They have been working diligently and conscientiously. They criticized the outsourcer, Yaju, for ignoring the plight of the workers."

      3. 柯詠敏 (2018-07-19). "【天水圍2.0．四】天晴邨有個「門常開」：不做蛇齋餅糉的互委" (in Chinese). HK01. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "There is also a "door always open" in a corner of Tin Ching Estate. Walking into the Mutual Aid Committee of Qingyun Building, ... Looking at Tin Ching Estate, there are many grass-roots families and elderly people, but the village has only a single-storey shopping mall with less than ten shops, which is difficult to meet the living needs of the residents. ... 42-year-old Tin Ching Estate is one of the many new immigrant women in Tianqing Village."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tin Ching Estate ( Chinese: 天晴邨) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I think the coverage given above is enough to work as evidence of notability. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 14:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The most mediocre of articles. Lets look at the non-references above, also mediocre to the extreme, the most common things, there are many grass-roots families and elderly people difficult to meet their needs like in every other place on the planet that undergoing fast change. threatening the safety of children playing in the playground. The very definition of the precuationary principle, again routine and mediocre to the extreme, used everywhere to protect chilren in playgronds. The absolute lowest most mediocre definition of what counts as notable. This defintion that is offered here as significant, offers no differetiation between what is notable and what is not. It breaks the barrier of what is consider special. It elevates the mediocre to specialness, the very worst kind of idea. What it means, is that every single thing on earth, even the most blaise and mediocre will come into Wikipedia. scope_creep Talk 22:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply
And the references and the references in the article are primary. scope_creep Talk 22:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Scope creep said, "This defintion that is offered here as significant" and listed two quotes from the sources I posted: "there are many grass-roots families and elderly people difficult to meet their needs" and "threatening the safety of children playing in the playground". These two quotes come from the "Less significant coverage" section of my list of sources. I agree that these quotes amount to less significant coverage which is why I included them in the "Less significant coverage" section. Tin Cheng Estate has received significant coverage in the first two sources I listed. Cunard ( talk) 22:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 8 March 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 Country Music Association Awards. Sandstein 09:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Country Music Association Award for International Achievement

Country Music Association Award for International Achievement (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be a notable award. Only sources are WP:PRIMARY or just PR pieces stating that a given artist won the award. Delete or merge with Country Music Association Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 8 March 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. Specifically, there is consensus against deleting the article, but there is no consensus on whether it should remain standalone or be merged or redirected. Further relisting this discussion to attempt to establish such a consensus does not appear meritorious to me; anyone who would like to take further editorial action on the article is free to do so, such as by establishing a consensus on the talk page, or simply following WP:BB. Stifle ( talk) 14:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Appleton Transit Center

Appleton Transit Center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. The two sources are about a 2019 shooting. SL93 ( talk) 23:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure merging mostly unreferenced content to another article is a good idea, even if the target article is unreferenced. I will support a merge if the content is referenced. SL93 ( talk) 23:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
NemesisAT Did you find any coverage beyond the routine coverage from Appleton's local newspaper The Post-Crescent? The sources about the shooting certainly show no notability. SL93 ( talk) 01:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Almost all the coverage I found was in The Post-Crescent. However, that doesn't mean we haven't passed WP:GNG, which does not forbid local coverage. Please see the source table below. NemesisAT ( talk) 14:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I disagree because multiple news articles from one newspaper is still one source. The shooting articles don't help because shootings can occur anywhere. SL93 ( talk) 14:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The articles are written by multiple journalists over a period of over twenty years. And even if you do want to count them as one source, an article can be kept on the basis of one substantial source and that is what you get if you combine the content of all the Post-Crescent articles. NemesisAT ( talk) 14:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I have no idea where you received the information that one substantial source is enough. Of course the local news covered it throughout the years. Local news always does that for local interests that remain for years. I could flood Wikipedia with almost any establishment I wish to create articles on if that showed notability. SL93 ( talk) 23:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
"Of course the local news covered it throughout the years." Hence why it is notable. This is not a small village, Appleton has a population of 75,000. A bus terminus serving 75,000 people is worthy of an article here, in my opinion. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF, if you have enough sources then go ahead, write this articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no space limit. NemesisAT ( talk) 23:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply
In the hundreds of AfDs I have participated in over the years, I still highly disagree with you based on the results of those AfDs. I really don't care if it's a small village or a large city. I can't go ahead with those articles because I know the end results. SL93 ( talk) 00:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply
We will have to just disagree. SL93 ( talk) 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=96069122&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjI4OTM5Nzg4NywiaWF0IjoxNjQ1NTM3ODMyLCJleHAiOjE2NDU2MjQyMzJ9.tr27CSUwQzzG8i9xS2-GVkXCgrY-C-2HziPj5G46MRM Yes Third-party analysis Yes The Post-Crescent is a long-running daily newspaper Yes Article focuses on the transit centre ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96165393/mayor-proposes-6-million-transit-center/ Yes Third-party analysis Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96071325/cheaper-to-build-new-transit-center/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96072964/new-smaller-transit-centre-backed/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96065802/bus-transfer-center-is-finally-complete/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://eu.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/23/end-era-greyhound-ends-bus-service-north-milwaukee/1727249002/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/16/us/wisconsin-firefighter-killed-medical-call/index.html Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://eu.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2019/05/16/appleton-shooting-what-we-know/3690802002/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ 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}}.
WP:SIR is clearly linked by mistake. A bus station isn't a company so WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't apply. Also, did you follow me here after your recent ANI edit? NemesisAT ( talk) 18:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Scope creep: did you follow me here? NemesisAT ( talk) 11:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 8 March 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Malcolm Davies (classicist)

Malcolm Davies (classicist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not really much familiar with Academics' notability criteria, but upon a cursory look, this person lacks in-depth coverage which are independent of the subject. There's only one source, which is auto-biography. Tame ( talk) 08:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

This scholar is obviously reputable, given the publishers they use. I would prefer this discussion were handled by someone familiar with classics. Nonnus49 ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
It's also not auto-biography, it's an official Oxford profile. Nonnus49 ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Khushali Kumar (actress)

Khushali Kumar (actress) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this page fails NP:Actor and GNG. She is only known as she is a daughter of Gulshan Kumar and as a sister of several notable people. She is not a notable fashion designer, yet to launch her acting career. This page has been multiple times created by undisclosed paid editor of her team under the name, Khushali Kumar, Khushali Kumar Dua and this time by name Khushali Kumar (actress). If any subject is notable as she or he is a daughter of notable people, every child of notable people should have a page. The page needs to be salted, this page has been rejected min 5 times on AFC and finally moved to mainspace by a socketpuppet, who is blocked on Wikipedia. I am sure, you will be finding a lot of paid editors who will be voting keep and we need to keep an eye on them. Chrisalder ( talk) 07:06, 8 March 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! 06:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Shifra Smart Homes

Shifra Smart Homes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Nothing in gnews for its English and Arabic names. Plain google search just shows directory listings. Possible WP:PROMO. LibStar ( talk) 06:33, 8 March 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 Rajoo Dada. Sandstein 09:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Aankhon Ke Saamne

Aankhon Ke Saamne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced, one of myriad articles created by Rajesh. And Wiki is not a database. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 8 March 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 Jonathan Davis. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Sexart

Sexart (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

insignificant footnote, only significance is that former member went on to form Korn. this band seems to be not very noteworthy otherwise, and probably would be better served as a footnote in the Korn article than have its own. Band never released a commercial recording, only recorded 15 songs, none of which were released to public. Discography pretty much empty other than several paragraphs explaining that they didn't do anything but home-record the songs. half the article talks about the band Sexart morphed into afterwards (Supermodel) SleighBellz1980 ( talk) 06:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jonathan Davis, where they are already discussed as one of his early endeavors. This article is a desperate attempt to make the band look historically important, when in reality they had one member who became famous without them later. (They are also briefly mentioned as an early stop for Ryan Shuck, who joined some other notable bands later as well.) The article is almost entirely dependent on sources that are actually about Davis and Korn, and the "Accolades" section is entirely about Korn's accomplishments with their overhauled version of one of Sexart's early demos. Sexart accomplished nothing notable on its own, nor did its successor band Supermodel. There is nothing to see here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 8 March 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.

At 02:44 today, User:AssumeGoodWraith, a non-administrator, closed this debate as no consensus. In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I, an administrator, have vacated this closure. I did so because I considered the closure to be in error. All opinions suggesting keeping the article were from users who are unregistered or have a conflict of interest, and they should be given little weight.

When considering the closure in the round, the result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Erich Holt Stem

Erich Holt Stem (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Opaqueambiguity ( talk) 05:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: Washington Post is an American newspaper source that is deemed credible, as is the West Virginia paper, and A Closer Listen doesn't look like a massive mag, but it stands as a credible source owned by a cadre of music critics.17:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.249.120.118 ( talk)

Simply being mentioned once in a credible source does not indicate notability. The WaPo article appears to be just a routine review of a local concert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.168.118 ( talk) 02:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: In addition to Wapo, West Virginia Gazette, and A Closer Listen, composer also has noteworthy mentions in two referenced "I Care if You Listen" articles, the Julliard Journal, and work with New Dynamic Records reviewed in Classical Music Daily and Time Out New York. These sources pass the "significant coverage" test as they go beyond trivial mentions of the composers's work, even if some of the sources' main content examines the work of other artists in the same article (also acceptable under the Significant Coverage test). Improvement to or updating the article could perhaps help the demonstration of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdynamicrecords ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Note that the previous "keep" was submitted by an account that was one of the primary authors of the original article, and has the username "New Dynamic Records" which is the name of the record label operated by Dr. Stem himself via his position at Indiana University. Most likely this is Dr. Stem's own contribution to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.168.118 ( talk) 20:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

 Renamer note: Newdynamicrecords has been renamed to JamesViolin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 03:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

How long does this discussion have to stay open? This is an obvious delete, fails all criteria for notability. This discussion has been relisted 3 times with almost zero discussion because nobody knows who he is and nobody cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.144.36 ( talk) 16:20, 14 March 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. Stifle ( talk) 10:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Aloha (web browser)

Aloha (web browser) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Most of the references are to store pages, the product's site, or unrelated information. A WP:BEFORE resulted mostly in download links and forum discussions. Found a couple reviews but those appear to be very run-of-the-mill stuff. Isabelle 🔔 00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 8 March 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 08:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Yu Nga Court

Yu Nga Court (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage is simply routine, not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 林穎嫺 (2022-02-19). "居屋2022｜東涌裕雅苑三座享機場海景　兩成單位3房2廁料即買即住" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      The article provides many paragraphs of coverage about Yu Nga Court. The article notes from Google Translate: "Yu Nga Court is located at No. 8, Yi Tung Road, Tung Chung extension area. There are 6 blocks in total, providing a total of 3,300 units. It is the largest housing estate in this phase. The unit area ranges from 272 to 555 square feet. It is estimated that the key date is September 30 this year. It is believed that it can be used as an existing building for sale. When prospective owners choose a flat at the end of the year, they are expected to "buy and live". ... Yu Nga Court is the largest of the HOS flats put on sale in this phase, and it will also have more supporting facilities."

    2. "新居屋｜東涌裕雅苑部分可望機場海景 提供約300停車位". Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2022-02-18. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "The new phase of HOS housing, Tung Chung Yu Nga Court, is located in the Tung Chung reclamation area, with a total of 3,300 units being sold, which is the project with the most units for sale in this phase. Each building is 32 storeys high, blocks A to D provide 570 units respectively, and blocks E to F provide 510 units respectively. The estimated key date of the development project is September 30, 2022, which means that the project is almost sold as an existing building."

    3. 陳梓蔚 (2022-02-18). "【居屋2022】北角驥華苑開則四方可望海　東涌裕雅苑平均呎價最低即買即住". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Tung Chung Yu Nga Court offers a total of 6 blocks of 3,300 units, with unit sizes ranging from 272 square feet to 555 square feet. The temporary selling price is from 1.3 million to 5.55 million yuan; the average square foot price is 5,730 yuan."

    4. "新居屋東涌裕雅苑伙數最多　大單位設2浴室　9月收樓料即買即住". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2022-02-18. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.

      From Google Translate: "Among them, there are 6 blocks in Yu Nga Court, Tung Chung, which provides about one-third of the units. Some units even have two bathrooms, which is a rare residential property in recent years. ... Among the many projects, the key date for Tung Chung Yu Nga Garden is September 30 this year. It is expected that the buyer can buy and live immediately, and it will be Kai Yan Garden in Kai Tak at the latest. The key date is December 31, 2024."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yu Nga Court ( Chinese: 裕雅苑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Spanish Trail Playhouse

Spanish Trail Playhouse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sourced to its website. Local community theater. Searching finds routine mentions in local media - announcements of productions. No in-depth coverage in RS, does not meet WP:GNG. MB 04:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Melody MacDonald

Melody MacDonald (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

only one citation presented and I cannot find other reliable info about her. Caphadouk ( talk) 04:18, 8 March 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 03:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Cabuyao Poblacion

Cabuyao Poblacion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:VERIFY in question. The City of Cabuyao and its baranggays exists but these "districts" might not. WP:BEFORE search just points to Wiki mirrors. Also,

-- Lenticel ( talk) 02:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Central District, Cabuyao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western Cabuyao District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aplaya, Cabuyao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mamatid District, Cabuyao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Lenticel ( talk) 02:54, 8 March 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 03:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Parulia High School

Parulia High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. WP:PROD was contested. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 02:11, 8 March 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 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Maikel Pérez

Maikel Pérez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MMA notability criteria; doesn't have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he been ranked in the world top 10 of his division. WP:GNG is also failed, most of his coverage is through routine sporting reports. Also competed at the 2008 summer olympics but did not win a medal. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 00:04, 8 March 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Violet Apisah

Violet Apisah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extensive junior career but does not meet WP:NTENNIS. Runner up in junior grand slam is close but not enough. LibStar ( talk) 00:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

That's still an essay. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Tennis is considered the notability standard which does not include Fed Cup. LibStar ( talk) 01:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
There are many many tennis player articles which are based of their participation in Fed Cup / Davis Cup competition. If you delete this one, I also suggest you go through many of the other thousand articles and delete those too for consistency. Keroks ( talk) 12:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I intend to do this soon when I have the time. Many of these Fed/Davis Cup-only players have no possibility for any reasonable expansion. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:09, 9 March 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_8&oldid=1079437168"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE