The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 L. Neil Smith. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Roswell, Texas (  | 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 Notability requirements and has exactly zero references and sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Death Editor 2 ( talk • contribs)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Webcomics. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Perhaps an editor with access to The Wikipedia Library or other premium databases will be able to find reviews of the book. I should point out that Roswell, Texas was a real community that should probably be the subject of an article. See https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/roswell-tx Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to L. Neil Smith. I found a brief review ^[1] and a mention in Encyclopedia of Weird Westerns ^[2] but not enough to support notability as a stand-alone article. Schazjmd  (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  in my personal opinion, I think it should just be mentioned in the published works section of the article. Death Editor 2 ( talk) 01:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Based on what I see now, a redirect to Smith's article is appropriate. I'll check my webcomics books tonight to see if any of them mention this at all, but I doubt I'll find much there. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 07:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per Schazjmd. I haven't been able to find any sources beyond the Booklist review and Green encyclopaedia entry; none of the sources in the article seem to be reliable. As such, the sources are sufficient for a one- or two-sentence mention but not an article. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 15:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Lucian Asanache (  | 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)

Played 3 games for CS Concordia Chiajna and then retired in 2018 to become an account manager in Bucharest according to his LinkedIn page. I was unable to locate any coverage that would allow Asanache to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I can find are a very brief quote in Gazeta SV and a slightly longer quote in Liga 2. Quotes from Asanache himself do not count as significant coverage of him. Aside from these sources, all I can find are routine loan announcements. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Romania. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk) 02:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to CS Concordia Chiajna if he played there, as nom suggests. Not enough for standalone article. Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 20:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't recommend redirecting as he isn't mentioned there. He also played for several other notable clubs, including ASC Oțelul Galați, so would prefer deleting rather than redirecting to one of his former clubs. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. A clear consensus has emerged following the addition of more sources. (non-admin closure) SN54129 13:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm Gonna Pin My Medal on the Girl I Left Behind (  | 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 AfD was created by a now-banned user and subsequently deleted. I don't know anythin about that and only saw it because of the edit history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. What I do know is that I decided to look into the subject and see what I could uncover about it, and what I found was nothing. There were plenty of passing mentions, some of which implied the song's importance, but not much actual concrete evidence of it. The song isn't even mentioned on Irving Berlin's page, though it is listed on List of songs written by Irving Berlin. A redirect to the list page makes sense to me. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 21:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 21:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to the list page as under WP:NSONG. Even if the fact that the mentions are in passing wasn't enough to disqualify notability (which it is), there just isn't enough information for the article to ever grow beyond a stub (which is also enough to disqualify notability!). Keep, in light of new information. Aamri2 ( talk) 15:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep I found and have just now added two acessible sources on Google books, one of them with specific things to say about this song's importance. I also saw some promising hits on Google Scholar, but while the song appears to have been mentioned in the body of the articles, it wasn't in the abstract, and I couldn't get past the paywall. A Wikieditor with access to a university library and its JSTOR pass could get us more. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I will give you that that is one solid paragraph (and the other a passing mention which isn't very useful). If those Google Scholar results come through then there could still be something here, but one good source (which I guess I must've missed, oops) isn't enough to change my mind just yet. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Legit. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 01:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep The original AFD was not created by a "banned user", but created by a sockpuppet of a now-blocked "vandalism only" account. The AFD should have stayed deleted. We should not even be listing this. However ... It seems to have been a significant song. I've added the link from the US Santa Barbara Discography of Historical American Recordings, as well as a link to its listings at Library of Congress historical recordings Recorded Sound Research Center (16,626), the National Jukebox (16,441) and the Recorded Sound Section, Library of Congress (6,098). Maybe it could use a little extra editing, but UC Santa Barbara and multiple listings in the Library of Congress, make this a keeper. — Maile ( talk) 13:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep since the sources cited support the subject's notability in the fields of both history and music. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Darkfrog24's source assessment. Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 20:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Participants effectively argued how this article subject does not meet notability guidelines such as WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSICOTHER. Tellingly, no additional work has been done on this article since the AFD nomination to correct its problems so I see no reason to relist this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thomas Flessenkaemper (  | 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 not seeing how notability is met for this individual, much less how it was accepted at articles for creation with a draft sourced only to a sheet music store and his website. Why? I Ask ( talk) 21:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Why? I Ask ( talk) 21:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. He doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:COMPOSER. None of his works are linked to articles, and the festival he (ephemerally) ran, the Amy Woodforde-Finden Music Festival, doesn't itself seem notable. He has been mentioned in independent sources, though all from the same paper, presumably local. 1 2, and a third already referenced in the article. Aamri2 ( talk) 22:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• The listed links to the music store lead to the store of the publisher. However, the compositions can also be purchased from various other publishers ( https://www.doblinger.at/Wir-sind-von-Gott-umgeben/220722). Thoyiqiwa ( talk) 05:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• A look at the ISBN in the category CD recordings shows that the Wikipedia criteria in

WP:NMUSICOTHER are clearly met. Besides, all articles linked to the music store have their own ISBN. Thoyiqiwa ( talk) 05:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

All the contributions of Thoyiqiwa have been practically in the contested article, which they also created. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• I can locate more independent sources like the one you referred to - not from the same paper. Thoyiqiwa ( talk) 05:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The article is a translation from the original article, which is verified by further references and categorizations. Among other things, with the entry of the German National Library, where you are only included as an established and published author ( https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=nid%3D1214670822). Thoyiqiwa ( talk) 05:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Simply having published compositions and an entry in a library's database are not enough to established notability. Please note that the second point of WP:NMUSICOTHER means that he has to have notable compositions meaning that people have written articles about his music. Why? I Ask ( talk) 00:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

We are not talking about just any library, but the German National Library. The GNL "is the central archival library and national bibliographic centre for the Federal Republic of Germany. It is one of the largest libraries in the world. Its task is to collect, permanently archive, comprehensively document and record bibliographically all German publications".

Regarding the other point: It is sufficient if one criterion is met in order to prove notability. But even further criteria in other categories are also met: WP:COMPOSER item 5, WP:NMUSICOTHER item 1 and 2, WP:NALBUM item 1. Thoyiqiwa ( talk) 07:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

WP:NALBUM concerns albums; not musicians. Criterion #5 of WP:COMPOSER asks that our subject be "listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter, or lyricist that meets the above criteria." Who might that "composer, songwriter, or lyricist" be? We have none. That leaves us with WP:NMUSICOTHER. Its criterion #1 is clearly DOA since classical music is anything but a "sub-culture" of music. Criterion #2 asks us to proffer "a number of notable melodies, tunes, or standards" our subject has composed. Yet, we find no such work in Wikipedia, the reason being none of them have been sufficiently notable for the encyclopaedia. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete since we cannot establish notability by WP:GNG or even WP:NCREATIVE. Let's wish this to be a case of "too soon". - The Gnome ( talk) 11:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete Sources don't meet GNG as of now, but this is perhaps WP:TOOSOON as The Gnome points out. Also worth noting the creator of the article is a possible SPA. Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 20:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Very much per The Gnome, as we wish his career trajectory well. But at this point—and with Thoyiqiwa promising to bring fresh sources to the article for four days but being unable actually to do so—the sources do not exist to support the basics of WP:ANYBIO or WP:BLPSOURCES. SN54129 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Challenge (TV series)#Spring Break Challenge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Spring Break Challenge (  | 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 be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 20:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I checked some subscription-access sources and I could not find any mentions there either. The cited articles from PROMO Xtra and Lincoln Journal Star only give trivial, one-line mentions of the show, which isn't very WP:SIGCOV. Aamri2 ( talk) 21:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Aamri2 ( talk · contribs), would you support a merge rather than deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard ( talk) 10:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'd support a merge, but there's so much information in the existing article. How much of it would you want to keep? Aamri2 ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It would be a selective merge to the article. To avoid undue weight issues, I think only a very small amount of content would be merged. Cunard ( talk) 22:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge/redirect to The Challenge (TV series)#Spring Break Challenge, where the subject is discussed, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard ( talk) 10:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to an appropriate lemma whatever can be salvaged from this sorry mess of source-less verbiage, obviously the creation of understandable nostalgia, salvaged text to be assessed strictly on the basis of extant, reliable sources. Text unsupported by sources is not moved around Wikipedia; it gets defenestrated. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Salman Ahmed Al-Ansari (  | 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 about lawyer and former footballer (although I'm struggling to find proof that the lawyer is indeed the former footballer) which fails WP:GNG. It reads like a CV with promotional information from his employers and links to speaking engagements and an article he authored, but nothing that is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. His footballing career might have received notice, but I can't find anything except database entries and routine coverage like match reports and squad listings. There are press releases [1] and [2] that cover his appointment to the board of FIFPro and as an arbitrator at the CAS, but they're not from independent sources (nor are they in-depth coverage). Kept at AfD several years ago before NFOOTBALL was deprecated. Jogurney ( talk) 20:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Law, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I've found press releases [1] about his role as leader of the Qatar Sports Arbitration Foundation, and while I didn't find anything asserting that he is the same person as the lawyer, it seems feasible given all the information present, although to draw that conclusion would probably be WP:SYNTH. Still, the only articles are press releases, which aren't indicative of notability according to WP:PRSOURCE, so I agree. Aamri2 ( talk) 21:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - academic career isn't sufficient for using WP:PROF criteria, and other activities don't meet WP:GNG. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete this attempt at a Wikipedia presence since subject distinctly lacks evidence of notability in the fields presented. The fact that the main contributor to the text has been a kamikaze account only amplifies the sickly aroma of promotion. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Abdul Salem Jamshid (  | 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)

Footballer article with no acceptable sources per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Even searches in Farsi (عبدالسالم جمشید) yielded no useful sources on him. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete on account of the subject's distinguished and significant lack of notability, per Wikipedia's criteria. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NSPORT. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney ( talk) 21:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Róbert Oravec (  | 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)

BLP with no sign of passing WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Best Slovakian sources that I could find were MY Nitra and Piestansky Dennik, both of which only provide trivial coverage. Perhaps not surprising given that, according to Soccerway, his professional career only lasted 13 mins in total. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom due to lack of sources – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 21:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney ( talk) 02:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete since subject trivially fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTIE. Note to working bee IQual: Keep up the good work! But not everything related to Slovak football is worthy of a Wikipedia article. This is not a directory. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hapkido#Myung Jae-Nam. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Myung Jae-nam (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Very scantily sourced. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Martial arts, and Korea. UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I found some sources: "masterfighting.com", "hankimuye.org" and "prabook.com". There are other sources I’m too lazy to find. - User: Brachy0008 (talk)
  • Delete Merge, per below. Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Redirect to Hapkido#Myung Jae-Nam Completely fails GNG. The sources listed are not significant reliable and independent at all see below:

Sources listed by User: Brachy0008:

1. "masterfighting.com" Non-reliable source, blog site N
2. "hankimuye.org" non-independent, written by the governing body of his martial art N
3. "prabook.com" Blog site with a copy paste of wikipedia article. N

The two references in article:

1. Myung Jae Nam: Hankumdo-bub practice book. Book by the subject. non-independent N
2. 'Myung Sung Kwan: A Study on Hankido. Thesis by the subject's son. non-independent N

Good faith google search does not show significant reliable and indepedant sources. Lethweimaster ( talk) 07:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Courtesy ping to @ Lethweimaster:, I found another source and you forgot to sign.

lowkickmma.com Mention of only 37 words. As suggested by WP:100WORDS this source doesn't count as significant coverage, and not the most reliable outlet as well, more like a martial arts blog. N

Lethweimaster ( talk) 07:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Then I’d change my vote Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Has anyone tried searching in Korean? Found some references including https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/3594825, http://www.wtu.kr/139 (apparently there is a statue to honor him), and http://www.mooye.net/8832, etc. There are probably more out there. But interestingly the Korean article for the subject is only a minimal stub which is far shorter and does not offer more references or material for translation. - Indefensible ( talk) 00:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Hapkido#Myung Jae-Nam. He already has a section in the main Hapkido article. I'll admit it seems that significant independent coverage is lacking, but he is clearly a significant figure in hapkido's history. Perhaps a few things can be added from the existing individual article to his section in the hapkido article, although I was bothered by the lack of significant independent coverage in the Hankido, Hankumdo, and International H.K.D. Federation articles. Anyway, I strongly believe the redirect is a better choice than outright deletion. Papaursa ( talk) 14:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Agreed with Papaursa for Redirect. Lethweimaster ( talk) 14:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge the picture and references to Hapkido#Myung Jae-Nam per Papaursa. - Indefensible ( talk) 16:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Hapkido. No independent merit here, as also acknowledged above. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

More Than a Thousand (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Portugal, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per Nom. I do not see enough notability to pass NBAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 ( talk • contribs)
• Delete since subject does not meet WP:GNG or even WP:BAND. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Cole Mohr (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and Texas. UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Week Delete: Surprisingly, I could not find any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that would allow for a biography of a living person. I did run across some industry related sites that used the same mentions "Highly ranked and celebrated fashion model". A "Models" site gave some personal biographical information. Forbes did list the subject as #10 on the "In Pictures: The Most Successful Male Models" list, and stated "in 2008 he was named the face of Marc by Marc Jacobs". The subject was apparently in "Momma's Man (2008)" as teen boy 1. In Disconnect (2012 film) the subject is listed in the cast but apparently a minor role. The subject was apparently in "Helmut Lang: Spring/Summer 2020 at NYFW (2019)" but I had to join to read. A problem is that a biography needs more than just a listing of jobs. -- Otr500 ( talk) 04:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There is nothing out there that would support any notion of independent notability. Subject fails WP:GNG. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Bojan Milanović (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Nearly completely unsourced. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Croatia, and Serbia. UtherSRG (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• This and the Serbian-language article are near copies and were created at the same time back in 2010, and "where is he now" sources come up quickly especially if you search the Cyrillic name. However he also dedicated a song to Ratko Mladić, so it's difficult to defend [3] [4] SportingFlyer T· C 23:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

A small remark: We neither defend nor denounce inclusion on the basis of the political or ideological beliefs of an article's subject. Notability trumps all else. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. The lack of sources is telling, whether in Serbian or in English, as also the Serbian article shows. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to George Forbes, 3rd Earl of Granard#Personal life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mary Forbes, Countess of Granard (  | 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)

Seems like a fairly minor member of the aristocracy. There's a nice painting of her but I don't see that there is much to suggest that notability is met. And WP:NOTGENEALOGY JMWt ( talk) 18:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Ireland. JMWt ( talk) 18:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - While not able to offer a "keep" recommendation without further review, and noting that much of the sources seem to be predominantly about the subject's (male) spouse and (male) children, I'd personally recommend against outright deletion of the title. As an WP:ATD, I wonder whether (at the very least) a redirect (to George_Forbes,_3rd_Earl_of_Granard#Personal_life) would be better than outright deletion... Guliolopez ( talk) 19:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to George Forbes, 3rd Earl of Granard#Personal life. An extensive Google Books search mirrors the article: only tertiary sources such as biographical dictionaries and genealogical namechecks. Not enough to beat WP:GNG and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. A redirect should do just fine, as most of the information found in the article is already in the George Forbes article or is WP:MILL genealogical information. Pilaz ( talk) 23:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per Pilaz. Spleodrach ( talk) 16:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mary Katherine Fechtel (  | 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 the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Coverage is limited to winning the Miss Florida pageant, making this a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun ( talk) 14:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Florida. Let'srun ( talk) 14:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - based on the article and available sources, coverage is not limited to winning the Miss Florida pageant, because she also competed in Miss America 2016, see e.g. Orlando Sentinel. Other sources include brief mentions in CBS News and AL.com, noting she was in the top-12; WGNO/ABC, reporting an early award during the Miss America competition; there is also the Orlando Sentinel with more in-depth reporting on her top-10 finish in the Miss America competition. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment - Why this one but not the dozens of other articles on beauty pageant winners who aren’t notable for anything else? Just curious. ~ Argenti Aertheri ^(Chat?) 05:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

WhistleOut (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2020. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites. UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. A poorly-covered ad created by a disposable account. It's a shame it's been up for so long. Suitskvarts ( talk) 06:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. WP:NOTPROMO. Even if sources are found for NCORP, TNT via deletion here. — siro χ o 21:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Alexander Marxer (  | 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 about footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Aside from database entries, club and federation press releases, there is only routine coverage like [5] and [6] which doesn't address the subject in depth. Article was deleted at AfD in 2019 because it failed the GNG and the now-deprecated NFOOTBALL, but nothing has been done since re-creation to indicate the GNG is met. Jogurney ( talk) 16:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 01:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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!} 06:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Catherine Sozi (  | 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 person is not a notable diplomat, having held no significant positions; sources to prove their achievements are scarce. Furthermore, LinkedIn has been used as a reference in their profile, which is not a reliable source. BoraVoro ( talk) 16:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Uganda. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Agree with nom in whole. Nothing here to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. User:Let'srun 19:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Wim Vanhelleputte (  | 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)

Not notable business executive, routine announcements don't help with notability. BoraVoro ( talk) 16:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Belgium. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Standard professional profile, does not make any claim to notability, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. — siro χ o 21:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to House (astrology)#Systems of house division. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Midheaven (  | 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:BEFORE by Rosguill and myself shows no significant coverage in reliable sources beyond basic dictionary definitions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Astrology. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I've removed this from the Fictional Elements DELSORT. Fringe topics do not belong pejoratively sorted as fiction. Jclemens ( talk) 16:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Apologies @ Jclemens and QuicoleJR:, I did not intend to sort it into that category. I must have misclicked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Searching now, I was able to come across this book ^[1], but am doubtful of its RS status, as it appears to present a wholly uncritical perspective on astrology writ large, making it a WP:FRINGE source. Somewhat damning is the absence of any books or Google Scholar results for phrases like "Midheaven in literature", which is where we would expect to see reliable secondary coverage of the relevance of astrological topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete This does not seem to have the sources for notability. Side note: Why was this under the fictional elements DELSORT? QuicoleJR ( talk) 15:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to House (astrology) - as an WP:ATD. Suriname0 ( talk) 00:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to House (astrology)#Systems of house division where mentioned seems like a good choice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Rob Walling (  | 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 a likely vanity page (the pic is "own work", and Rmwalling is contributing to the article). The sources mostly go to trivial mentions and articles by non-staff contributors. There are several interviews, some of which are in reliable sources, but I'm not really sure that can establish notability by itself, which would require secondary sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment Rmwalling's last edit to the article was back in 2018, so I would not say that he is "contributing" to the article. 02:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)   ArcAngel   (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete this unadulterated, exemplary piece of vanity, masquerading as a Wikipedia biography. The criteria demanded by WP:GNG are not met: There is a gaping void of sources that could support the subject's quest for fame. Yes, folks have zealously posted up an avalanche of links, yet their substance is more gaseous than any balloon can take:

We have texts written by our subject, e.g. here, here and here; corporate dialogue, e.g. here, to which one can only comment with "who cares?"; articles about something else entirely, in which our subject is name-dropped once e.g. here, here, or here if one goes for Italian; a few interviews -on which, as notability proofs see WP:INTERVIEWS, and note #d in WP:OR, e.g. here; and so on. We also have irrelevant thumb-suckers as this link. But no dead links, so we have something positive.

Seriously, there is no there there. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Chinese Communist Party members (  | 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)

A list of CCP members would be too long to make a useful list ( WP:SALAT). The CCP has almost 100 million active members and Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE. CCP membership is a good category but not a good topic for a list. SilverStar54 ( talk) 17:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. This currently is an infinitely expandable list as noted.

-- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 17:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. You can imagine this being something like the example given in WP:LISTCRITERIA of List of Norwegian musicians, which is plainly on the face of it far too large a list to be comprehensive, but which remains manageable because it explicitly limits itself to only including Norwegian musicians who are individually notable. Even so, though, this list would be enormous, because virtually every important Chinese politician and a great many people in public life would be members of this list. What I think is even more important, though, is that their membership in the CCP is in many cases not the criterion on which their notability hangs (whereas many of the Norwegian musicians would not be notable if they were not musicians). In fact (following the advice at WP:LISTCRITERIA to ask "If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?"), it would be more notable for a highly successful Chinese politician to not be a member of the CCP! I also considered whether we should rename and narrow the scope of this page, but we already have a plethora of lists like Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, List of national leaders of the People's Republic of China, and Orders of precedence in China which are discrete versions of what this list would be if it were built out. Any missing subject areas can be covered with more specific list articles. - Astrophobe ( talk) 18:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and China. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete but potential rename. The list is infinitely expanding in some categories, but this list could just be the active high-ranking or significant members of the CCP (executive cabinet members, military and paramilitary leaders, etc.). This would be more notable, but also easier to maintain. Conyo14 ( talk) 21:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete There is only one allowed party in China, so there's no choice. — Maile ( talk) 22:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, as it seems the article was intended as that type of list. Nate • ( chatter) 02:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm convinced it would be too broad a rd and there's no real target it can go to. Nate • ( chatter) 21:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete – too broad. Don't redirect to Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party as that is a different topic; the redirect would at best create confusion as the Politburo Standing Committee includes only an extremely small fraction of the numerous notable Communist Party members. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 04:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Far too broad; about as useful as List of brunettes. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Another massive list with no real use. Right now, there are an estimated 98 million members of (as noted by Maile66) the only legal party in the most-populous country on the planet. What value could such a list possibly have in an encyclopaedia? Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 19:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I do want to note, in case this affects any !votes, that the Chinese Communist Party is not the only party -- or even the only legal party -- in China. We could for example have a list of Chinese politicians from minor parties with people like Zheng Jianbang and Cai Dafeng. But this list, which is the opposite of that list, is indeed overwhelming in scope. - Astrophobe ( talk) 01:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete List is too long and wikipedia is not a database Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 20:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the above. A resturcturing as "List of notable CCP members by province" might be workable but I wouldn't really recommend it. A quick search for comparable lists for the Republican Party (United States) finds no overall list but some sublists like List of African-American Republicans and List of Latino Republicans which are very broad, as well as List of American conservatives which actually looks useful in its current state but could use clearer inclusion criteria. Overall, I think that we are inconsistent in our approach to broad lists. However, my preference is to limit them so I support 'delete' in this and similar instances. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Bluedating (  | 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)

Not an established term (Google barely finds anything). The external link doesn't even mention dating. No notability, WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Icodense ( talk) 17:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete - very passing mentions of the concept in media, other than that appears to be someone trying to sell an app. JMWt ( talk) 17:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: No sources, I doubt there are any out there. Fails GNG P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 22:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Almost promotional material Os ari us 11:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non-notable. There is not enough third-party coverage. This probably was a neat idea back in 2004, but nevertheless it is not notable. Anton.bersh ( talk) 20:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Nicolae Grigorișin (  | 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)

Current mayor of Bălți, Moldova. Based on the Russian & Romanian articles, they were also a city councillor as well as the vice-mayor. Not finding enough to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, just routine coverage. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Moldova. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete mayors do not have notability just for being mayors, and local news will cover any mayor. It does not appear Grigorisin has received notability above and beyond simply being a mayor of the city. SportingFlyer T· C 00:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for being mayors per se — the notability test for a mayor is not passed by minimally verifying that he exists, it's passed by writing and sourcing a substantial article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this is literally "he is a mayor who exists, the end", which is not what's required — and even the Romanian interlang, while longer, still isn't actually doing what's required either, as the expanded content consists entirely of a smattering of background biographical information and his vote totals in his reelection campaigns rather than documenting anything he actually did in the job, so just translating that still wouldn't salvage this. Bearcat ( talk) 14:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG. And WP:POLITICIAN. There are no sources. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Margaret Boyle (  | 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)

– CaroleHenson ( talk) 15:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Scotland. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• A Prod tag was added to the article, and there was discussion at Talk:Margaret Boyle#Notability, but the tag was removed.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 15:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The article describes no significant contributions to mathematics (or anything else), so WP:PROF is out of reach, and we have to go by WP:GNG. There are what appear to be two actual sources (not counting the obituary of her son that doesn't even use her name) but both are published by St Andrews so they are not independent, and I was unable to find Boyle in the "brief history of women at St Andrews" source. So we have no statement of significance, one non-independent in-depth source, and no independent reliable in-depth sources. This could almost be an A7 speedy deletion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not able to see a way to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG after some searching. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 19:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No sign of WP:NPROF. For GNG: I normally would expect individuals covered by MacTutor to be notable, but there's little in the MacTutor article as to why she might be notable, and I did not find any evidence on a search. I keep in mind that it might be harder to find sources on subjects that were active ~100 years ago, but I think we need more than is apparent here. Watching this discussion in case better evidence of notability somehow arises. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 19:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete outright. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Market window (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Finance, and Organizations. UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: No sources, dubious notability, nothing to merge or anywhere to really merge it. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 19:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I found a source here. [1] There are other sources out there, which again, too lazy. Transwikifying to Wikitionary can also be an option.
• Delete Dicstionary definition. Needs to be in wikidictionary if anywhere but currently unsuitable here. Lots of mentions but not intellectual depth to coverage. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep ^Talk 06:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: The term is overloaded - "market window" is also a sales term, which is what the brainmass site (not an RS one either) is covering. A few other sites I found seem derived from enwiki, but even if there is some level of suitable coverage somewhere (in which case a WP:DAB should be implemented) then State-owned enterprise is the comprehensive article covering what this is. ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~} 09:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tue Madsen (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Denmark. UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete Mixing engineer. Lots of passing mentions but not real WP:SECONDARY coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep ^Talk 06:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete since subject meticulously and with admirable exactitude fails WP:GNG. All one can find are announcements, typical listings, and irrelevancies. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Olga Kononenko (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. NN beauty pageant contestant. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Fashion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Russia. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. No clear notability. SomeoneDreaming ( talk) 21:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete on account of subject failing WP:GNG. One more text from times passed in Wikipedia, when vanity articles were not being hunted down convincingly enough. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Zakia Kohzad (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, Afghanistan, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Subject meets WP:VANITY but fails WP:GNG. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Conduction zone (  | 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 page is original research based on unpublished article "Unified Theory of Low and High-Temperature Superconductivity" written by User:Jerry Z. Liu, the original author of this page. The unpublished article itself is crackpot science. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 13:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 13:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The content of this page is almost identitical to this page, which is a paper (not peer-reviewed) by no one else but "Liu, Jerry Z. Ph.D." according to the website. I consider this a major violation of Wikipedia's rules. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 13:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  That page has been copied from Wikipedia and perhaps modified. The references still contain links to wikipedia and there is even a See also section. It is not clear that there is a violation. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 19:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Notifications left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. -- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 13:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There are so many reasons for deletion that it's hard to pick one: original research, self-promotion, lack of sources, lack of notability, crackpottery... Tercer ( talk) 13:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The term "conduction zone" is used in only one unpublished personal web page reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton ( talk • contribs)

• Speedy delete per G12, obvious copyright violation. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 15:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Please list the material you think is in violation of copyright. I did not see any. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Virtually the entire article is copied verbatim from the link provided by TheLoneLyPanther. That website's content is not loaded by Earwig. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 15:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Thanks. Seems like this reason to delete would be easily worked around. But there are others. Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete, speedily if possible, for any or all of the smorgasbord of reasons provided above. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. OR, self-promotion, notability, copyvio. (I doubt crackpottery directly violates any WP guidelines.) Maproom ( talk) 15:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  WP:FRINGE is the relevant guideline for crackpottery. But it is mostly an elaboration of WP:OR, WP:N and other fundamental policies. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 16:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Fringe is an assessment of notability. "Crackpot" assumes a judgement of ideas, which we should avoid. Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  And we never say "crackhead". -- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 18:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  According to the guideline we may use judgement and label the theories as ‘bogus’. See WP:FRINGE/PS. I’d argue that the case is clear enough here, with big claims of this being a “theory of everything”. Also, the theory does not originate from the physics community so WP:FRINGE/ALT does not apply. But I agree that crackpot is a nasty word, and I could have used the word pseudoscience instead. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 19:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. OR, self-promotion Constant314 ( talk) 15:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per clear guidelines and consensus.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 17:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per comments above. A classic case of why notability requirements help filter unreliable articles.

-- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 18:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete a very ambitious unified theory of superconductivity sourced only from the author's personal webpage ( WP:OR). Sources cited like Ashcroft and Mermin have plenty of discussion about the conduction band and the Brillouin zone, but they definitely don't discuss a "conduction zone". 〈  Forbes₇₂ |  Talk 〉 22:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete as junk science. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC). reply
• Delete per all of the above. There is original research and some parts are unsourced, which is detrimental especially for a scientific article. Also, most of the contents covered in this article are covered in other articles. HarukaAmaranth ( 話) 00:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sooraj Tom (  | 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:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 12:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 12:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm surprised the article survived the first time, because now Mr. Tom's back for another go-around. As per the nomination, the article fails WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. Per the first nomination, he also fails WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article itself is only about the films he himself has directed and nothing else. Nothing about his epic upbringing into a filmmaker. Nothing. Only dust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IncompA ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Awards won are trivial, not much else for sourcing. I can't find anything. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The latter, despite claims to the contrary, is trivially not met, since subject has never, or not yet, created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, to which also the filmography section in the article testifies. Further search only confirms the void. A small note: As it happens, I'm rather fond of the type of work done by the likes of Sooraj Tom. But Wikipedia is not a cinema directory nor a collection of random information. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

KaatiZone (  | 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)

Marked for notability concerns 11 years ago. No coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar ( talk) 09:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Karnataka. Shellwood ( talk) 09:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - A couple book mentions but everything falls short of WP:ORGCRIT. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  The page is planned to be updated very soon with the updated guidelines and policies. Sumitmontygupta ( talk) 00:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment - @ Sumitmontygupta:, you stated you were going to update the page but I only see this as an addition which uses the company website and another reference which doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Were you able to locate additional references that can show notability? If so, ping me here and if convincing I will gladly change my vote. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 16:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ CNMall41. I added some more references on the page. I can add more like this and this. I hope these are convincing. Please share your thoughts. Sumitmontygupta ( talk) 13:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I see the references you added which was the official website of the company along with some company profiles from various publications. Neither of these would meet WP:ORGCRIT. The two references you posted above include one from LBB which is two sentences and the other is a redirect to the homage of Economictimes. Can you show how either of these would meet the ORGCRIT criteria?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for an update from User:Sumitmontygupta and more discussion on the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete I am unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ⁺⁺ 17:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Hindi films of 2021. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Raag (2021 film) (  | 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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, only 1 review found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Unless at least another review is presented, I'd suggest Redirect to List of Hindi films of 2021.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  As nominator I would support this redirect option. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Seán Mór Seoighe (  | 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)

An ancestor of the author James Joyce and some other notables. The current sourcing is from a book about James Joyce's father. Various passing mentions can be found, all in the context of his descendants. I do not see significant coverage and feel the GNG is not met in this case. JohnmgKing ( talk) 12:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. JohnmgKing ( talk) 12:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, WP:NBIO, WP:INHERIT, WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:GNG. As noted, being a distant ancestor of the writer John Stanislaus Joyce (or his perhaps more famous son James Joyce) doesn't confer notability. And that seems to be the only claim to notability being made in the article. In terms of the sources, those in the article are entirely about the subject's descendants and the subject is only mentioned in passing (and then in very vague terms with conjecture and conflicting "family tradition[s]"). In terms of other sources, a book search or a journal search for the subject ONLY returns works/mentions which are substantively about the subject's notable descendants (with nothing that allows expansion beyond the short and uncertain prose we already have and the vague "exact relationship uncertain" WP:NOTGENEALOGY family tree - that doesn't appear to be supported by anything at all). This looks like (yet another) one of those WP:NOTEVERYTHING submissions from the article's original author that doesn't meet the project's criteria. Certainly having a notable great-great-great-great-great-great grandchild doesn't confer notability... Guliolopez ( talk) 15:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and per Guliolopez. Spleodrach ( talk) 16:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. Guliolopez has nailed it. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Jinpyo (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010 and for unsourced since 2009. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Buddhism, and Korea. UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete - Jinpyo is a name used by other individuals later as well so that potentially obfuscates any results about this individual. I see a lot of search results mentioning this article's subject building, rebuilding, or expanding temples, but nothing that goes into any detail about the individual himself. However, sources may very well exist, but just in a way that I cannot access. I did find some potential books that I couldn't access that may or may not go into detail about this individual, and as an 8th-century Korean monk it's reasonable to assume that sources may exist in Korean that remain inaccessible to me due to a language barrier. However I can't argue that an article should be kept because I think reliable sources might exist that show notability, so until notability can be established I don't think there should be an article about this individual, not least of all because without sufficient sources there's no guarantee that the details in the article are even correct. If sources can be found, please ping me and I will be glad to reassess, but from what I can find WP:GNG isn't met. - Aoidh ( talk) 20:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Paul Jibson (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. Also a probable WP:AUTOB. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to lack of significant coverage; the only coverage in RS I could find was passing mentions in articles about his brother Michael Jibson. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete at the first opportunity, since the article's subject clearly fails basic criteria for inclusion in a Wikipedia bio. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Intrigue (band) (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep: On the National Library of Norway's website alone, the band is referred to in 34 books, 885 newspapers, and 6 magazines. When you turn to the Finnish side of the border, it is referred to multiple times too. The recently added keyword system in Ávvir even turns up hits. It's not particularly difficult to find sources for this band [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], which passes WP:NBAND and WP:GNG just fine. - Yupik ( talk) 12:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

BTW the Áillohaš Music Award is one of the most prestigious Saami music awards. It is not conferred to non-notable bands and musicians. - Yupik ( talk) 02:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The previous voter makes a convincing case on how the band is well-covered in their community's media, and they have a prestigious award too. Their basic name can make searching tough, but search in conjunction with member names or album titles, and non-English news articles are not too difficult to find. Meanwhile, even though the article has been waiting for sources for many years, that does not alleviate the need for a WP:BEFORE search that could have been done by the nominator. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Identity Performance (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010, as well as WP:OR and Essay. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Social science. UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep seems reasonably well-sourced and an idea that does have some support among academics (not OR). The article is a little too essay-like for my liking, so it should be rewritten, but I don't think it rises to the level of deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 15:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The concept is covered by scholarly sources. If it looks like an essay, why not work on improvement instead of deleting it? Darwin Naz ( talk) 23:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. I don't see OR here. In fact, I can't find a good defence of the original WP:N tag, either, considering the breadth depth of RS. Yes, it needs a rewrite, but so do about a quarter the articles on Wikipedia. That is an opportunity for improvement, not deletion. I do not see how deleting this article will improve Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 16:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is clear consensus to delete this article as written. Whether an article broader than Operation Valuable is needed is not a question for AfD, and should be settled by talk page discussion. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Anglo–American invasion of Communist Albania (  | 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)

Clearly a POV fork of the article Operation Valuable and originally researched for the most part. There was no "Anglo-American invasion". Most reliable sources describe it as a covert paramilitary operation to topple a regime. The only source (a source of questionable academic value) which called it an "invasion" is this source and probably some other tabloids and blogs like this one. StephenMacky1 ( talk) 11:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, United Kingdom, and United States of America. StephenMacky1 ( talk) 11:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

• Delete. The title, infobox, and beginning of the article portrays this as an invasion that happened and failed, whereas the body of the article is WP:CRYSTALBALLing the possibility of an invasion. This entire article is better explained and nuanced by Operation Valuable, and there is nothing here not already stated there. Jebiguess ( talk) 22:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Only the Operation Valuable section talks about Operation Valuable there rest is completely new and what about all those sources that state it as a conflict? Like i said before we can discuss about the name of the page but not if it actually happened because it did and i have added sources to back my claims. Based.shqiptar.frompirok ( talk) 03:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete obviously as a WP:POVFORK. Not an invasion (no, not even a "covert invasion", whatever that is). Redirect back to Operation Valuable where Anglo–American Invasion of Communist Albania still is directed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep We can discuss the name of the page but not whether it actually happened because It did, The sources clearly called it an invasion. Operation Valuable was a part of the invasion, in all the invasion had around 3 Operations (that I know of) Operation Valuable, Operation BG/Fiend and Operation Economic Warfare. Based.shqiptar.frompirok ( talk) 15:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  So your main problem with the page is the name? StephenMacky1, if that is true you could've just gone to the talk section and write it there not try to delete the whole page that has over 25 sources which are reliable. Based.shqiptar.frompirok ( talk) 13:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. It does appear to be a POVFORK and the differentiators between it and Operation Valuable appear to be OR or SYNTH. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 18:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  How is it POVFORK if only the Operation Valuable section talks about it? 92.53.49.241 ( talk) 22:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete POV fork of the already problem-ridden Operation Valuable 123.243.216.213 ( talk) 05:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• (sockpuppet comment removed)

  How it can be POVFORK, and otherwise give examples. ToadetteEdit ^{( chat)}/_{( logs)} 19:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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!} 06:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

American Jugoslav Association of Minnesota (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Yugoslavia, United States of America, and Minnesota. UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails to meet the criteria of the relevant notability guideline at WP:NCORP. Actualcpscm ( talk) 09:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Praveen B Menon (  | 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. Wikipedia, IMDb, and other unreliable sources used as references. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Film. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 11:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete No reliable sources - Rich ^{T| C| E-Mail} 16:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 10:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County bus routes (  | 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)

Yet anoter bunch of bus routes with nothing to suggest why they are notable. No sources, appears run of the mill. Wikipedia is not a bus guide or collection of niche bus trivia Ajf773 ( talk) 10:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Transportation, and Texas. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Fails WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTGUIDE, to some extent WP:NOTDIR, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Funeral Song (The Rasmus 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Finland. UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. I didn't find anything. But there are a bunch of links on the Swedish article. Suitskvarts ( talk) 06:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I had attempted to add some sources from the Swedish Wikipedia. However, most of the sources are just fan sites, except for one OK quality review of the song. I didn't find much beyond those references. I believe it fails notability guidelines as well. Tintinthereporter226 ( talk) 14:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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