WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2023 MARCH 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 05	March 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

NZS 4512

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

Completely unsourced article about a standard for New Zealand's requirements for fire alarms. I've searched, and I find nothing but trivial mentions (system X was installed to NZS 4512 requirements) and government sources that are copies of the standard. There are 10s of thousands of New Zealand standards like this one, and as far as I can tell none of them have articles - and neither should this one. It doesn't meet WP:GNG and I am not aware of any subject-specific notability guideline that might apply. MrOllie ( talk) 23:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Not notable in any fashion that I'm aware of FranklinOfNull ( talk) 01:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nom. No reason for this article to exist. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(
Talk
Contribs)} 03:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. General fail of WP:GNG. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Per nom. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of ambassadors of Greece to Russia. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Danae Magdalini Koumanakou

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Searching for "Danae Koumanakou" yields 1 gnews hit. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 23:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Greece. Shellwood ( talk) 23:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Bulgaria, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Obviously searching the name of a Greek person in English will not return very many sources. However, searching with her Greek name (easily acquired from the ru.wiki article) has a lot more GHits; it's a little misleading to say a search returns no hits when the search was conducted incorrectly. Regardless, a look-through shows that many of these appear to simply be passing mentions of routine diplomatic activity with no indication of WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge/Redirect. Rather than deleting the page wholesale, it would be better to redirect to the List of ambassadors of Greece to Russia page. Historyday01 ( talk) 03:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge to List of ambassadors of Greece to Russia, as there is material here which is worth keeping but little sign yet of notability. Is that what you had in mind, Historyday01? However, when there is consensus to merge, it seems common for someone to redirect the page and no one to bother to merge anything. Moonraker ( talk) 01:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, that's what I had in mind, so updated my !vote. Historyday01 ( talk) 02:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge to List of ambassadors of Greece to Russia per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge to List of ambassadors of Greece to Russia per above. // Timothy :: talk 11:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Marek Holynski

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

Sources confirm computer science specialist and associate professor. These are not notable. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:notability (people). Otr500 ( talk) 23:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Otr500 ( talk) 23:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

delete per nom, the article does not contain anything that would indicate he is notable. He fails WP:NPROF given his publication record. -- hroest 02:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak delete. This is poorly written, with no footnotes, and so has issues with WP:BLP. Notability is not clear; pl article as has mentions of some awards, but I am unsure if they are sufficient to estabilish his notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 04:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Only a handful of citations in GScholar, with the h-index of 2. No evidence of satisfying WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article subject fails WP:NPROF as the relevant guideline to notability. Degree of coverage is also insufficient by WP:SIGCOV standards. Shawn Teller ( talk) 22:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply

The Idoru

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

Profoundly unnotable band which hasn't released any new material in a decade. The article wasn't substantially touched for years. Search for WP:SIGCOV yielded no results aside from their own Facebook page. The style in which article is written is non-encyclopedic and suggests WP:COI. This is my first time nominating, otherwise I would go straight for PROD. MitYehor ( talk) 23:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Edit: Dear all, I got too carried away while commenting on other poor examples of existing articles and made an honest mistake. This band is indeed passing WP:BAND and should have not been nominated. What gave it away though is the poor encyclopedic style in which the article is presented, so as a retribution I will attempt to improve it. I am voluntarily de-listing this nomination. (I will not touch the discussion thread though and let the auto-moderating sequence to organically resolve) // MitYehor ( talk) 22:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hungary. Shellwood ( talk) 23:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
keep it seems they were awarded the Hungarian Music Awards twice (Fonogram) if the article is correct. That should pass WP:NBAND, however the article needs major work. -- hroest 02:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment - I have some familiarity with Hungary and its music scene, and though I'm American I can attest that searching for information is difficult due to tricky translation issues. From what I can find, this band is listed as winning the Hungarian Music (Fonogram) Award once in 2012, as seen at this official site: [1]. That leads us to the question of whether that is a "major" award per WP:BAND #8. Winning that award seems to generate some minor local news coverage, such as [2], but with little notice abroad. If you only search for this band in the English-dominant sources that appear near the top of a regular Google search, you will find nothing useful. Therefore I recommend that someone more familiar with the Hungarian language and that country's news sources consult on the best ways to search for this band. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 20:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. $Salvio giuliano$ 23:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Jessica Hand

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. 4 of the 5 supplied sources are primary. LibStar ( talk) 23:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 23:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Angola, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

delete fails WP:NBIO, no coverage of her person - the only coverage is related to her mission and her representing her government. no independent coverage of her as a person. -- hroest 02:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - disclaimer that I wrote this page, but I've just cleaned it up a bit and added a load more references such that I think I've managed to establish notability. I now don't see why this article should be deleted, but please let me know if you think I'm missing something. Thanks! Gazamp ( talk) 11:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

thank you for your contribution and the work you put into this. However WP:GNG / WP:BASIC states that the subject must be covered in depth by multiple independent sources - this means multiple WP:RS articles (so not government pages but independent journalistic articles from the Economist/Times/Guardian etc) that have an in-depth piece about her specifically (and not just her day-to-day work that is associated with her doing her job) or one-line mentions of her/a quote from her. This is what is currently missing to establish notability. Similarly she seems to not pass the bar in WP:ANYBIO of a major award or major contribution to her field. -- hroest 13:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Would the combination of these sources not establish notability?

I'd say they are non-trivial enough to together satisfy the first bullet point at WP:BASIC, no? Gazamp ( talk) 14:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Interviews are not Secondary sources and dont count towards WP:BASIC, no. -- hroest 16:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: there is enough significant coverage here for the WP:GNG. That is not about importance, but this is a significant career, too. Moonraker ( talk) 14:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Moonraker: can you please state which articles specifically you consider "enough coverage" since I dont see any? Thanks -- hroest 14:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, Hannes Röst, one of the better ones is the article from Jornal de Angola, but all of the non-primary sources go to notability, either individually or collectively, and there are sure to be many others. I am uneasy about seeing a series of AfDs targetting British ambassadors, with the same editors' names popping up again and again on the "delete" side. How would it be if you were to spend some time finding reliable sources and improving the pages, instead? Moonraker ( talk) 14:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, the AfD discussion is intended to discuss the subject with respect to deletion guidelines, not for improving the article (even though improving the article is appreciated, feel free to have a go at it). I dont have a problem with the quality of the article (see below) and I am more interested in a more general discussion about ambassadors and their role in WP. Also I think this is the only ambassador related discussion that I have participated in today -- hroest 16:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

comment I have thought a lot more about this, consulted previous discussions in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) and essays like WP:DIPLOMAT (which reflect thinking of some editors even though they may not be official policy) and I have kept my judgement but with a more in-depth reasoning. It seems there are several articles that feature the subject, however most relate to her official capacity as ambassador and her work as ambassador and not to her personally. In general government officials are often in the media for representing their governments and for things they say on behalf of their governments, not necessarily because of interest in their personal biography and we should keep the two separate. Even most of the interviews talk about her work and are about the diplomatic relationship, not about her personally. It seems a lot of the material would better be integrated into an article on Angola–United Kingdom relations which seems to be missing at the moment (and could be built similar to Angola–United States relations). It seems similar discussions have previously played out in WP:DIPLOMAT and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2015#Ambassadors_and_Diplomats the last time in 2015 with a similar consensus: diplomats are not inherently notable and creating headlines when they represent their country officially as senior government officials doesnt make the person itself notable (similar to how we dont have articles about the press secretary of a company but rather an article about the company itself). This fact is also reflected when she is quoted in newspapers and in interviews, which are not inherently about her but about the UK-Angola relations and policy. I dont speak Portuguese very well but statements like "Para nós, isso é fundamental, sobretudo, para o desenvolvimento, sucesso e prosperidade de Angola" (Google Translate: For us, this is fundamental, above all, for the development, success and prosperity of Angola) clearly indicate that she talks about "us" as the UK / the country and not about herself personally. -- hroest 16:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

keep I think there's enough coverage to pass notability, for example The Independent From Welsh secretary in Barry to Our Woman in Belarus, The Daily Telegraph International: One Stop The Asylum - But Loving Every Moment, South Wales Echo Our Woman In, Aberdeen Evening Express A Belarus first for Jessica, The Times British envoy leads walkout Piecesofuk ( talk) 17:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

keep There appear to be enough sources, either those in the article itself, or noted in this discussion which show the notability of Jessica Hand. Historyday01 ( talk) 03:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Piecesofuk has demonstrated clear significant coverage above on top of what's already in the article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment I am willing to withdraw my nomination but Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Procedure_for_non-administrator_close_(nominator_withdrawal) states I can only do this if there is unanimous keep. Would @ Hannes Röst: reconsider their vote? LibStar ( talk) 08:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep Sources discussed above seem sufficient to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep Article has been improved substantially per WP:HEY. I spot checked some sources added, and some are dedicated pieces about her, or otherwise dedicate a non-trivial amount of time stating her views, particularly those on Angola. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. My take on the sources is that they satisfy WP:SIGCOV and meet the WP:NOTABILITY threshold in WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Substantial improvements to the article should also be noted, e.g. WP:HEY applies. Shawn Teller ( talk) 22:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The sources might be independent but some of the claims in this article ("the first ascent of Mount Everest in 2018"?) are verifiably false, as pointed out by participants in this discussion. I don't think his notability among mountain climbers is demonstrated. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Rohtash Khileri

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

He climbed the mountains, yes, but so did many hundreds of other people. Besides photos of him climbing the mountain, there is no coverage in RS about him. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and India. Shellwood ( talk) 21:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

He made the first ascent of Mount Everest in 2018. He was the first person to spend 24 hours on Mount Kilimanjaro. MIT&boys ( talk) 07:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. Just among the sources in the article, there are multiple foreign language sources covering him, and no credible challenge has been made to their independence or reliability. There's no requirement that a person be the only person notable for something. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 16:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. Assuming the references present in the article were added in good faith and corroborate its contents. I do not know the language and the sources enough to be certain, so I ask anyone that speaks the language to ping me if they have reason to think different. Rkieferbaum ( talk) 19:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 22:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

delete apart from a somewhat dubious record there isnt really anything that passes WP:NBIO. The record seems somewhat contrived Longest Duration to Stay on the Top of Mt. Kilimanjaro: Rohtash Khileri (Hisar, Haryana). and is sandwiched between Youngest Diploma Holder in Drawing & Painting: Shiven Sidharth (Delhi) and Largest Bamboo Species Collection: Prashant Atmaram Date (Nashik, Maharashtra). [3] -- hroest 02:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep The Amar Ujala and Punjab Kesari articles are detailed ones Christopheronthemove ( talk) 17:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete This article is full of nonsense and there is nothing notable about climbing Everest, Elbrus or Kilimanjaro in the 21st century. Using the term "first ascent" to describe a climb that has been completed thousands of times over the last 70 years is simply false. Elbrus has been climbed for 150 years including on horseback and Kilimanjaro has been climbed by countless people ranging from seven years old to 89 years old. This person is not a notable mountaineer. Cullen328 ( talk) 16:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Charmelle Cofield

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

Not meeting GNG, I find one name drop in Gnews, next to nothing about her in Gsearch. She only co-wrote "minor" hits per the article, so that probably explains why there isn't much to be found about her Oaktree b ( talk) 20:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

In trying the google news search myself, all that could be found was an article (that is unusable) from 2008 about an artist she worked with who claimed to be fully cured of HIV.

That search omitted many of the mid 2000s interviews given by notable R&B artists she has written alongside, any current articles/interviews related to her hometown or community involvement, music publishing affiliations, or released gospel albums/work in the gospel industry, all of which were found in the first two/three pages of a regular Google search.

I do not think this is the most effective evaluation method. Trainsskyscrapers ( talk) 20:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Missouri. Shellwood ( talk) 21:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak ~~Keep~~ Delete - per WP:COMPOSER, she has credit for [...] co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition, " A Woman Like Me", and is described as a major influence on her likely notable twice-Grammy-nominated ( Guitar.com), Grammy-winning ( In Kansas City) musician/songwriter son. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) From my view, the In Kansas City source describes her influence (e.g. "he watched his mom write a song", "they began performing together at church", "it wasn’t until the duo played at 18th and Vine’s Blue Room that he felt the real power he had over an audience", plus brief details about her career), and the Guitar source mentions their collaboration (e.g. "One of his most endearing continued collaborations", "has co-written some of her son's material since 2016" plus brief details about her career), but on further consideration, including because I had initially been concerned about the limited depth and independence in available sources about Cofield, I have updated my !vote from weak keep to weak delete. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 22:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: I don't see what Beccaynr is referring to regarding her being an influence on her son. Neither of the sources there appear to say so. Only one source in the article is actually about Cofield and it's a press release. Didn't see anything else. QuietHere ( talk) 23:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: producer of two gospel albums [4] alone does not pass WP:GNG.-- hroest 02:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Charlie Morgan (entrepreneur)

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

I really do not think that possibly being kicked by Eden Hazard is a credible claim of notability, and there's nothing else. Rich kid who has started a vodke company? Yawn. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk) 14:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Wales. AllyD ( talk) 14:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep Subject appears to have sufficient coverage from reliable secondary sources to ring the WP:BASIC bell. Not impressed by the article length and frankly I would not have bothered creating an article about this individual. But yeah, I think it passes our criteria, if barely. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Per Ad Orientem. Subject is founder and owner of world famous vodka company and named on Sunday Times Rich List 2022 besides being known for his ballboy incident. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 20:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Das osmnezz: I did not find his name anywhere on the so called rich list. One of the sources in the article says he's worth 40m, the rich list with 250 names goes down to 650m (meaning that if he's on the rich list, so am I, as long as you go down the list long enough!). Rkieferbaum ( talk) 19:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

this Times article literally says he is 24th on the Rich List. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 21:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

So having rich parents makes one notable? God help us all. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

And your idea of world famous is clearly different from mine. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ TheLongTone No. Notability is established by meeting the criteria in WP:BASIC. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Whether or not we like the subject of the article is neither here nor there. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I have no feelings about the unremarkable subject, except that he is clearly not in any way either interesting or, more importantly given the huge number of articles on kick-the-ball artistes, notable. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete contrary to the article, he's not won the UK's richest people (his net worth is £40 million according to [5], which is way short of the £11 billion needed to be in top 10 on that list). Being high on that list would probably generate coverage to pass WP:GNG, but that's not the case here. Owning a business that's in multiple countries doesn't assure notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED- it's doubtful whether the company is notable anyway. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

He is still on the list, just not on top 10 (see [6] as source), and as Ad Orientem said, there is sufficient coverage from reliable secondary sources (see [7], which goes into his background, [8], [9], and [10], among the other sources in the article). The company is also notable (see [11] and [12]) Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 21:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

You give two links to establish the notability of his drug business; I can't access the second because I edit from a public library which blocks it (hardly confidence inspiring0, and the second looks like a lump of pr-generated muck in a less than reliable source. And , again, having an obscene amount of money does not make one notable. This person is clearly a nudnik. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

All the other sources I listed above bevcsides the ones you mention also establish the notability of who you refer to as a "nudnik's" business which you mistakenly refer to as a "drug" business. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 22:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Vodka` not a drug? Have you ever encountered anybody who has taken the stuff. And yes, he is a nudnik. Simply a rich one. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

And his company may be notable (I doubt it) but please see WP:NOTINHERITED. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep - scrapes by per Ad Orientem. // Timothy :: talk 07:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:notability (people) as a BLP. This is Not a world-famous vodka company. We have editors that are not showing neutrality using weasel words. A main problem is that the majority of the sources are company-related, and as stated, Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED applies. By some of the above standards (broad and ill-defined), Jackson Quinn would be notable because he shares most of the sources with the subject. Sourcing that is passing mention does not advance notability. Repeated sources count as one toward notability. Sources that repeat information found in another source are likely press releases. Being rich and owning a business should not be a pass for an article. I am not sure how we get to barely notable or scrapes by. It either is ---or is not--- and I don't see notability to an encyclopedia level. -- Otr500 ( talk) 17:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

A fair share of the sources focus on him. Also, you say this is not a world-famous vodka company while saying at the same time most of the many sources (which are reliable) are about the company. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 06:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The company is decidedly less than world famous, hence the PR push to get the number of people who have heard of it into double figures. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

"double figures"... Au Vodka has 313000+ followers on Instagram alone. For comparison, of all the vodka brands that have a Wikipedia page, the one with by far the most followers is Crystal Head Vodka, which has 60k, less than 1/5 of the amount Au Vodka has. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 02:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The company is not what we are discussing. We are discussing Mr. Morgan and whether or not he meets the criteria for inclusion. I don't see a requirement that his business be world famous. If you are saying you think this guy is a bit of a non-entity and in a more rational world would not merit an article in an encyclopedia, I would be inclined to agree with you. But IDONTLIKEIT isn't a criteria for opposing. And as unimpressed as I am by this guy, he does in fact appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: reports of possibly having been kicked for stalling a match as a ball boy hardly qualifies for making the subject notable (no one ran a piece on him for that nor should they). The next 3 references are about the vodka and he's mentioned in passing. He being on the so called rich list is clearly an overstatement and not enough on its own to define notability. All in all, there aren't two separate sources that give him enough coverage to define notability as defined by WP:GNG. Rkieferbaum ( talk) 19:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Covered by multiple sources and was the main person involved in the coverage. KatoKungLee ( talk) 19:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 22:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete all I find are stories in the Daily Star or the Mirror, typical celebrity fluff pieces. Not finding GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

delete being a ballboy does not qualify and it seems as an entrepreneur he has managed to inherit a fortune of 42 million pounnds [13] and turn it into 40 million pounds [14]. Hardly an achievement and there is nothing that would pass WP:GNG here.-- hroest 02:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
comment If his name was added to the article, maybe a redirect to Eden Hazard#2012–13: Debut season and first trophy. I'm sure that this satisfy the article creator, whose interestr is evidently kick-the-ball. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: significant coverage. WP:GNG has nothing to do with importance , and even a rich ballboy who makes vodka can scrape over the line. Moonraker ( talk) 12:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete unremarkable career. Yes he's rich but that in itself isn't enough to satisfy notability. LibStar ( talk) 08:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment – agreed, WP:GNG says nothing about money, but you should know it also says nothing about a "remarkable career"; so a point that holds no water. Moonraker ( talk) 01:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

yawn LibStar ( talk) 01:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment - I agree with Moonraker's points about WP:GNG above. Also, all the pro-deletion editors' main arguments are: Charlie Morgan is rich only because of his father (his father has not died yet), he is still a "nudnik" (one editor's actual words), and that his company is only known by 9+ people (one editors said "number of people who have heard of it into double figures") all of which they have supplied no actual evidence to back up. As evidence against the latter "argument", Au Vodka has 313000+ followers on Instagram alone. For comparison, of all the vodka brands that have a Wikipedia page, the one with by far the most followers is Crystal Head Vodka, which has 60k, less than 1/5 of the amount Au Vodka has. On top of that, there are many sources about the company (see [15] and [16] as an example, among many more sources online). He also has sufficient coverage from reliable secondary sources (see [17], which goes into his background, [18], [19], and [20], among the other sources in the article and more sources online. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 02:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Guy Roche

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

Didn't find enough for a notability pass. QuietHere ( talk) 21:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. QuietHere ( talk) 21:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - He has a fair number of credits as a trusty studio hand, but I can find nothing beyond bare listings of his presence in the credits for other people's works. He appears to have no dedicated coverage in reliable sources that focus on his own career specifically. Meanwhile, the article has a reference to a book, and I was able to peruse a free sample of a portion of that book at the Amazon site. I could not get to page 418 where this guy is apparently mentioned, but the parts of the book that I can see indicate that he would again be listed very briefly as present at someone else's recording session. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 19:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Unfortunately I cannot find a fair amount of reliable, credible third-party sources focusing on coverage for this individual. His accomplishments are indisputable, however, for WP purposes they still fail WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. // MitYehor ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus to Keep this article. But I hope some of the editors here can help with the "clean up". Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Information art

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

The article does not describe a specific topic (announced as "an emerging art form"), but refers to a haphazard collection of very loosely related things that have something to do with information and also something to do with art. A search for material discussing a topic covered by the term did not result in any in-depth treatment of a possibly notable topic. If the term "information art" is used at all, it is used for such disparate things as (1) visually interesting images of information technology hardware, such as microchips, originally not intended as art, but presented as image trouvée; (2) the use of statistical data and similar information as the inspiration for art work; (3) " computer art": art produced using information technology as a tool. Presenting an article on all this as if these are manifestations of an emerging art form is in my opinion WP:SYNTH. -- Lambiam 15:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- Lambiam 15:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 20:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Information art may be somewhat nebulously defined, but that's not fatal (or even relevant) to notability. It is broader than the very active area of Climate change art, but at the same time is narrower than Data and information visualization. Accordingly, I don't see an obvious destination to move all the content of this article, so I think it should stand. — RCraig09 ( talk) 21:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: I tried a bit of cleanup in the article, but it is hopelessly SYNTH. If this is a notable subject (if) TNT is needed to give it a fresh start, because this is all (goodfaith) SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 07:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't find it particularly WP:SYNTHetic, though most of it was written ~15 years ago and relies substantially on publications that are not online and readily verifiable. Though the content is somewhat vague (e.g., compare to Data and information visualization), "there's something here". It appears to be one of many articles that could use TLC rather than TNT. — RCraig09 ( talk) 23:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 21:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I'm in agreement with RCraig, this calls for cleanup rather than deletion. The article may be a mess, but there are entire college-level textbooks written on the subject listed as references. There's no question of notability. Valereee ( talk) 12:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep Strike my delete above, my main issue wasn't notability (I believe its notable and distinct), but was thinking TNT for synth. I can accept other editors deciding cleanup is a better option, they can always rm material that doesn't work. // Timothy :: talk 13:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: the article is a mess, however the amount of textbooks leave no doubts regarding the notability of the topic. // MitYehor ( talk) 06:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. I see a consensus to delete these articles. If editors would like to create redirects from these page titles, feel free to do so. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 00:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Ongoing History of New Music 2010s Episodes

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

Violation of WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NOTTVGUIDE; every single episode of this program is not "historically signfificant." Relies on a single primary source. Creator has been edit-warring with multiple accounts with no consensus in their favor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Lists, and Canada. Shellwood ( talk) 21:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep:Hi Jamie,

My understanding is that Episode guides are allowed on Wikipedia. This is a radio documentary series and the intent of the WP:NOTTVGUIDE refers to "an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules". This is neither current, promotional, or upcoming, but rather historical. I have fully referenced the episodes as requested when they were deleted from the main The Ongoing History of New Music page and formated them according guide found in the Template:Episode list. There are many many episode guides on Wikipedia and I am just trying to comply within the rules and keep getting the WP:NOTTVGUIDE put up which I believe is being referenced incorrectly.

@ Ymblanter @ Ymblanter @ Captmondo

Also, not sure why more then one source is required here, that link was a cummulitive list that was posted on the shows at the time current website with every show, title, and air date for the first 623 Episodes. It's the single best source of truth to be found for the first 13 years of the shows existance.

I just want to comply within the rules and have this information available to the people who enjoy the show and who have used the information stored here since at least 2011.

Zankof Zankof ( talk) 22:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

You conveniently omitted the part of NOTTVGUIDE that says historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. There is no indication any of those episodes are historically significant and I believe you'd find it impossible to present a case that these 900 episodes are historically significant.

Based on your comments, I'd add WP:NOTWEBHOST may apply as well. Corus Entertainment's commercial website is where this belongs. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: I pulled this material out of the The Ongoing History of New Music article as Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NOTTVGUIDE and WP:NOR. Here is where Dheadspaceb declares that entire list of episodes to be their own WP:OR. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
But I did find an archived version of the shows website at the time that had a complete list dating all the way back to the beginning of the show along with all the titles and applicable original air dates. I really am trying to comply within the rules you keep referencing. You also did ask that if the information was reinstated that it have references and I did provide that. I cleaned up the list and made it more digestible and easier to read, I formated it according to the Template:Episode list. There is no promotions, future schedules, or upcoming events. Episode guides are allowed on Wikipedia, there are thousands of examples of them. Zankof ( talk) 22:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
[21] http://www.exploremusic.com/ongoing-history-of-new-music/2009-05-27/Ongoing-History-On-Air-Schedule-Since-1993

this page would confirm what may have been original research with a list that was provided by the staff of the show on the current website at the time back in 2009. I have pulled every link I can out of the wayback machine and the current shows website and referenced them. I have provided over 300 reference links for the pages in question. I had more links but when I found this link with a concise list of all the airing including reruns for 13 years, I thought it had more weight. Zankof ( talk) 23:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: Was List of Ongoing History of New Music 2000s episodes missed or was it intentionally left out? Hey man im josh ( talk) 00:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty certain it was an accidental omission. I've WP:BOLDly added it as housekeeping. Toddst1 ( talk) 00:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I think that was create after I created the AfD, otherwise I would've included it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. The key to making these lists notable enough to be included in Wikipedia wouldn't be referencing the content to Alan Cross's own website — it would be referencing the list to third party media coverage about the episodes, offering evidence that they got third-party attention. Bearcat ( talk) 17:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect all to The Ongoing History of New Music as WP:NOTTVGUIDE. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete all then create a single generic redirect to The Ongoing History of New Music as WP:NOTTVGUIDE, no reason for multiple redirects in this case. // Timothy :: talk 11:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 23:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Loic Sumfor

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searching for him brings up nothing but one or two passing mentions, as well as a ton of ‘free download mp3’ sites, neither of which can be used. The one place that went into depth about him was this. However, it appears to be a blog with no information about ‘Big JM’, who authored the post. We have no way to tell if this person is a subject matter expert. No viable sources. ◇ Helen Degenerate◆ 20:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Africa, and Cameroon. ◇ Helen Degenerate◆ 20:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete article should have never been created. Catfurball ( talk) 22:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment Unsure if it's the same person, he's mentioned in several sites as an actor in the Oscars submission, for example here: [22]. That's just a name drop, but I think if it's the same person, could be notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The film got some international notice, but this guy is just one member of the cast. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete then. Non-notable music career. We can revisit if the film wins the Oscar and his career blows up. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 02:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete . Fails WP:NBAND he just released his first EP, so this is likely WP:TOOSOON for him. -- hroest 02:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

check this artis out on any social media, and you'll see that all informations on this Article about him are facts 102.244.178.16 ( talk) 10:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, but social media doesn't meet the notability requirements here in Wikipedia. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Deleted: Fails WP:NSINGER and WP:ENT. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - He has a few credits, but as is usual for attempted WP articles on beginners in the African music scene, he has not moved beyond his own social media and unreliable gossip sites that repeat his management's promotional blurbs. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 19:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - Does not meet WP:NMUSIC; sources do not show notability. Eagleash ( talk) 10:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - Doesn't seem to really have any individual coverage. If he was in a band, it might not be as big of a concern, but as a solo act, it has to be a major concern. KatoKungLee ( talk) 17:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Draftify I have personally contributed to the recent state of the article but encountered some issues getting references to use, whereas the subject does not meet the required minimum Wikipedia notability, he is an actor with a crucial role in a movie that was nominated for Oscars award, perhaps e his works are more notable than himself hence when put in the draft space and given time, It may meet wikipedia notability Africanaz ( talk) 12:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete The page may have been created a little too prematurely. I attempted to find more sources for the article and was also unsuccessful. He has the potential to become notable, but he's not currently. MiddleOfAfrica ( talk) 22:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article subject doesn’t meet WP:NMUSIC. Would be open to Africanaz saving the page in user space, however. Shawn Teller ( talk) 17:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
No interest in saving it in my user pace given its limited notability in regards to the Wikipedia Foundation terms. Even the Oscars are done without the movie The Planter's Plantation where he played a good role with his music used being mentioned. I don't think there will be more required notability within the coming 6 months. Africanaz ( talk) 18:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
So @ Shawn
I thinknit is deleting it that is required at Wiki requirements untill such a time when it is due for inclusion Africanaz ( talk) 18:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

May be it should be put in Iamakisah User space as he is the article original author(Initiator) Africanaz ( talk) 19:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 23:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Myanmar National League squads

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

Contested draftify. No evidence of any coverage from independent WP:RS, in fact the squad lists don't even look to pass WP:V, which is the absolute bare minimum for inclusion for anything on Wikipedia. We have never previously had articles on squad lists for league seasons, so, for example 2021–22 Premier League squads or 2021–22 La Liga squads would never be a valid article. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that the reason for this is because squads change throughout the season so there is never just the one consistent squad list like you would have for, say, an international cup tournament.

In any case, without any reliable sources this article should not be in mainspace and it should not be merged into other mainspace articles either per WP:V and WP:NOR, which are Wikipedia policies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - we do not keep lists of squads for league seasons, due to their ever changing nature (and lack of notability). Giant Snowman 19:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete we do not create separate lists for squads, not least because they frequently change. And especially not for this domestic league, where the squad lists will never meet the standards of WP:NLIST for a separate list. If the squads are reasonably static (not changing often), then they could be mentioned in 2023 Myanmar National League article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 00:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Akkaldhamayile Pennu

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}}

.

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Can't find reviews from RS in a google search. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ ^{Let's Talk !} 19:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ ^{Let's Talk !} 19:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: NN film... fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. UtherSRG (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: I looked for reviews or analysis about this movie. Nothing showed up. 111.92.118.94 ( talk) 08:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Reply This IP has edited only on one day and that too mainly for giving delete comment in discussions of this page and the related page. It maybe the nominator or the one who desperately trying to delete both these pages. I don't know they doing such tactics to delete these pages Christopheronthemove ( talk) 15:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep : The movie passes WP:NFILM , it has won Kerala Film Critics Association Awards. Also there are detailed articles from Malayala Manorama , Indian Express etc about the movie. Christopheronthemove ( talk) 19:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It won Special Jury Award in Kerala Film Critics Association Awards 2015 which is not a major award so it fails Wikipedia:NPOL. If you think this is notable film so why there are no reviews about it from reliable sources. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ ^{Let's Talk !} 05:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Reply Kerala Film Critics Association Awards is one among the most prestigious film awards in Kerala. It has reputation of starting from 1977 and is certainly a major award Christopheronthemove ( talk) 09:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
point The movie got 2 awards at Kerala Film Critics Association Awards, one for the director and one for an actor Christopheronthemove ( talk) 09:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
point Added a relatively detailed article about the movie from Times of India Christopheronthemove ( talk) 09:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: The user has been voting on multiple AFDs despite having joined less than a day ago. Akevsharma ( talk) 12:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep, the 2 Awards, and the Plumeria Movies review that is currently on the page make it appear notable enough.— MY OH MY! 11:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
This is not about Akkaldhamayile Pennu. It is an announcement about an unreleased film Ambalamukkile Visheshangal. This has got nothing to do with this AFD. Akevsharma ( talk) 12:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Right, thank you, wrong copy-paste, stupid me. Amended my comment.— MY OH MY! 15:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Plumeria Movies is not reliable. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ ^{Let's Talk !} 05:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: The film doesn't meet any of the criteria outlined in WP:NFILM. It lacks full-length reviews from at least two nationally recognized critics. The Kerala Film Critics Association Awards are presented by Kerala Film Critics Association, an organization and the films are selected by the members of the association. Don't get confused with Kerala State Film Awards. Kerala State Awards are presented by the Kerala government while this one is not and cannot be considered as a major one. Akevsharma ( talk) 12:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
point sharma, Academy Awards, in other words The Oscar award is given by an Organisation Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences which doesnt mean like its an inferior award.It is the most prominent awards for film in the world, the Oscars is even given by an organisation So, you doesn't have a valid point here arguing about Kerala Film Critics Association Awards is not a major award. Also, you removed one detailed review article from the movie page from filmibeat which is one of the popular film website in south India. Christopheronthemove ( talk) 14:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comparing the Oscar Awards to the Kerala Film Critics Association Awards is not a logical comparison. Three editors have pointed out that Kerala Film Critics Association Awards is not a major award. FILMIBEAT is considered to be an unreliable source in Wikipedia per WP:UPSD. See the discussion [23]. Note the statement. OneIndia and all its derivatives like Filmibeat, Gizbot, etc, are content farms. Note how it advertises itself to potential employees, stating that it "churns out around 1000 articles a day and has industry best engagement metrics". Filmbeat in particular has a lot of churnalism with text in its articles inserted from press releases and other publicity material. Hope this helps. Akevsharma ( talk) 15:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

gone through it and i agree with your point of removing filmibeat article as it is mentioned as not reliable in those sections. but as you mentioned Kerala Film Critics Association Awards are given by some organisation earlier, I had to mention that Oscars is also given by some organanisation. Here the Kerala Film Critics Association is media persons/ jounalists and film critics from all media and this awards were instituted from 1977 and thats its prominence Christopheronthemove ( talk) 17:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Asianet Film Awards was first instituted in 1998. This raises the question of whether they can truly be considered significant, despite being given by an organization that also operates as a channel and includes film critics and media members on its jury panel. Therefore, it is not a valid claim that the award is significant solely because of its history dating back to 1977. Akevsharma ( talk) 00:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

To the closing admin: Note that certain accounts with a single purpose, which were created after the opening of this AFD, as well as some sleeper accounts that appeared after this AFD commencement, have now appeared to vote here. This is now becoming a venue of sockpuppetry. Of particular importance, Jehowahyereh, who is connected to Jayaram Kailas, the director of this movie has been confirmed to have abused Wikipedia by using multiple accounts. I request that the closing admin take note of this and a look at Jehowahyereh's talk page to obtain a clearer understanding. Akevsharma ( talk) 00:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jehowahyereh. Akevsharma ( talk) 11:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: fails GNG and NFILM, no Ind RS sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth (such as a independent neutral review). Minor regional awards do not show notability and the lack of Ind RS covering the awards demonostrate this. The comparison of Kerala Film Critics Association Awards to the Oscars I think says all that needs said about the Keep !vs. // Timothy :: talk 12:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1: withdrawn by nominator. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Loaded (2008 film)

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator ( talk) 18:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator ( talk) 18:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak keep as did find one full review at DVD Talk here, but more needed imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Also there is a full review from this Dutch film source here imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak keep per Atlantic306, just barely scrapes NFILM. Also found a really short pre-production article from The Hollywood Reporter (perhaps usable) and a third review from The National. ツ LunaEatsTuna ( 💬)— 00:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak keep per above. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I withdraw the nomination per consensus. Good work finding those suitable sources, everybody. The Film Creator ( talk) 00:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. Provided sources are sufficient to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Shawn Teller ( talk) 17:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Fritz Sommer

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Of the three references included, all of them are sports database entries. Was draftified in hopes of improvment, but was returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - Made 69 appearances for a first division team. This is one of 3 articles OP has tried to delete of mine today so, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole. Use Common Sense and Wikipedia:The rules are principles. Doesn't seem to answer Wikipedia:The one question. KatoKungLee ( talk) 17:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

This article has serious issues. WP:SPORTBASIC says Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.. All 3 sources provided are database sources. Do you have anything more appropriate? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Shellwood ( talk) 17:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Per KatoKungLee. Definitely has offline sources having had extensive career in 1950s-50s including top flight professional football in Germany. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 21:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The German wikipedia has a much more detailed article on him and has several offline sources:

Lorenz Knieriem, Hardy Grüne: Enzyklopädie des deutschen Ligafußballs. Band 8: Spielerlexikon 1890–1963. Agon-Sportverlag, Kassel 2006, ISBN 3-89784-148-7.

Werner Sklrentny (Hrsg.): Als Morlock noch den Mondschein traf. Die Geschichte der Oberliga Süd 1945–1963. Klartext-Verlag, Essen 1993, ISBN 3-88474-055-5.

Hardy Grüne, Claus Melchior: Legenden in Weiß und Blau. 100 Jahre Fußballgeschichte eines Münchner Traditionsvereins. Verlag Die Werkstatt, Göttingen 1999, ISBN 3-89533-256-9.

BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I was given access to the third book by a user and it says the following: "Fritz Sommer: Fritz Sommer was in the Oberliga Süd from the very beginning. Until the end of his career after the 1957/58 season, he played 231 games in this division, by far more than any other Lions players of that era. He started as an outfielder, but later moved to the center half position. A leg fracture in his first B-team international against Spain in 1953 ended a possible international career before it had actually begun." BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

If that's all a book dedicated entirely to the history of 1860 Munich can say about him... JoelleJay ( talk) 19:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. The de.wiki article has a lot of text covering his team's performance but very little content actually on Sommer, and what's there is just "Sommer played in this game" and "Sommer was transferred to the B team", leading me to believe those offline sources contain nothing beyond what we would see in databases (fixtures, positions). JoelleJay ( talk) 00:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per German wikipedia, mentioned in three books, multiple mentions in offline sources, [24], he was part of the squad that play in European football and was an important figure for the club during the period he played. @ GiantSnowman: There is notability here, you shouldn't trust this nomination or the other delete votes. Not to mention newspaper searches have not been done. Govvy ( talk) 15:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. All of the references included are just to sports databases, which are not enough to establish notability despite the votes that are based on participation alone. Not opposed to draftify, but I worry that it may be moved back without improvements. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't like using this argument, but I feel we should just use COMMONSENSE here. This player appeared in 231 games for a top-level team, in the offline era (40s, 50s), for a foreign country, nobody has done any newspaper searches (which is where the most in-depth coverage would be), and there's several offline books that discuss him (listed above – also, in the one I've been given access to, his biography is listed in the section for the most important figures in the team's history). Weak Keep. struck at the moment BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
In an amateur, regional league... Giant Snowman 18:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ GiantSnowman: Wait, so the league he played in was not the top division of German soccer? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The Bundesliga (the German top league) was not founded until 1963. Before that it was regional leagues. See Bundesliga#Origins. Giant Snowman 18:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

So it was the top league for only a section of Germany? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ BeanieFan11: Germany had a system where each state had its own top league - Gauliga. The only times the teams met were in a cup( List of German football champions). Germany then split up of course into East and West Germany, and the teams from East and West never met on top of one of them having 4 seperate top flight divisions (and some lower divisions). I'm not sure of all the political issues involved, though there may have been something with the players receiving less or reduced pay due to government involvement. These were all top level teams and divisions. Then later when Germany reunified, the teams got all placed in various Bundesliga levels. It's odd and quite confusing. KatoKungLee ( talk) 20:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi ( talk) 21:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:SPORTBASIC#5 and WP:GNG. These are the only relevant guidelines here. Whether he has played 1000 games or just 1 game is not relevant because notability is no longer based on participation, and that's a good thing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep or Draftify : I checked the german page of the footballer and found few books which can be used as reference for his notability. I have added thos in the page as well. If that doesnt satisfy notability I suggest to draftify this article Christopheronthemove ( talk) 04:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Christopheronthemove, do you have access to these books? Can you tell us what the SIGCOV in them is? JoelleJay ( talk) 16:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: BLP with no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Fail GNG, NSPORT, NSPORTS2022. Nothing in the article is SIGCOV, BEFORE showed stats, database entries, listings. As BeanieFan11 mentioned above the book ref does not mention the subject. Per JoelleJay sources on de wikipedia mentioned above are not SIGCOV. BLPs need completely clear and reliable sourcing: WP:SPORTBASIC Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.. // Timothy :: talk 12:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 08:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Emrah Ormanoğlu

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

Fails WP:GNG Nswix ( talk) 17:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Martial arts, Wrestling, and Turkey. Nswix ( talk) 17:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Has 2 other wiki pages and won a European Gold Medal at the U-23 age bracket. KatoKungLee ( talk) 21:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment Junior martial arts events are generally not considered to show WP notability, even world champions or Junior Olympics. Many junior champions have had articles deleted as WP:MANOTE and WP:NSPORT both specify competing "at the highest level", which is not the junior level. The number of wiki pages he has is irrelevant to notability on the English WP. Papaursa ( talk) 13:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

* Prob Keep - it seems to me that the first two references currently on the page count as RS and go towards meeting the standards of the GNG. On that basis, I think the subject is likely notable. JMWt ( talk) 18:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I've striken my !vote as JoelleJay has offered good criticism of the sources below. JMWt ( talk) 06:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. The first reference comes from aa.com.tr, for which "reliability depends on contributor or topic"; does anyone know how to gauge reliability of this source? The second ref includes a passage copied (seemingly unattributed) directly from Wikipedia, leaving just a few sentences of routine results recap to consider independent coverage. The rest of the sources are databases, releases from non-independent bodies, routine results announcements, or passing mentions. Doesn't pass GNG so far. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi ( talk) 20:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Currently ranked 24th and has only one appearance at a non-junior world championship. In 2021 he won his first match, lost in the round of 16, and lost his first repechage match. I agree with JoelleJay's assessment of the sources. Even if the first source is agreed to be reliable, one source is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 22:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, per lack of GNG sourcing. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. That the subject has articles on several other-language wikis is absolutely irrelevant. Winning multiple gold medals would prevent an A7, but if there are no reliable sources with in-depth information we cannot have an article. Randykitty ( talk) 09:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Valodya Frangulyan

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG Nswix ( talk) 17:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Martial arts, Wrestling, and Armenia. Nswix ( talk) 17:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Draftify - The guy won multiple gold medals at international events and has 5 other wiki pages, so he's relevant. His page just needs a properly written article about what he has done. KatoKungLee ( talk) 21:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that different language wikis have different definitions of notability. The existence of other pages is therefore absolutely irrelevant and any !vote based on this will be disregarded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. The three UWW.org are non-independent database hits, N. [25] is a routine fight announcement, N. [26] I can't access. [27] is not independent, N. [28] is a routine results recap that is mostly quotes, N. [29] is a passing mention in more results, N. [30] is a trivial mention, N. Ditto for [31], N. The 7 youtube links are just primary coverage of matches, N. Fails GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per source analysis above, doesn't meet any notability standard Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Adhiwala

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

No indication of existence or notability. Kazamzam ( talk) 17:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Pakistan. Kazamzam ( talk) 17:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete There appear some passing mentions of this name: here, here and here, and the last source infact says, Next day the troops reached Adhiwala and on the 27th Surajkund . Here , on the 28th , Lieut Lake joined the State force as Political Agent , after visiting the Nawāb at Ahmadpur on the 26th but I'm really not sure if this helps around or not. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment -- This appears to be a real place. If so, we should either Keep or Merge to a successor (or nearby) place. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Do you have any sources for this, indications of notability beyond a passing mention, etc.? Kazamzam ( talk) 14:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: Fails GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. I can't find any information that this has been "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available". A search of JSTOR, ProQuest, Project Muse returned no results. // Timothy :: talk 12:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 12:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 22:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ilyas Bekbulatov

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

Amateur wrestler doesn't meet WP:GNG Nswix ( talk) 17:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Martial arts, and Russia. Nswix ( talk) 17:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Uzbekistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Gold Medalist at the Asian Championships. KatoKungLee ( talk) 21:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Sources in the article are either blurbs from non-independent bodies (wrestrus.ru, teamusa) or routine non-significant coverage. A search in Cyrillic of some of the main Russian sports news outlets didn't provide anything further (just the usual brief tournament results reports). JoelleJay ( talk) 21:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi ( talk) 20:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Despite success at continental championships, he has only qualified once for the world championships according to the sport's governing body ( United World Wrestling). In 2022 he officially finished 27th [32] in the 70 kg category. None of references appear to support a claim of meeting WP:GNG as they are basically reporting sports results. Papaursa ( talk) 21:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 04:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Razmik Papikyan

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG Nswix ( talk) 17:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Martial arts, and Armenia. Nswix ( talk) 17:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - He has 8 other wikipedia pages, wikimedia commons photos and placed in what was equivalent to the world championships - 2020 Individual Wrestling World Cup. The MMA guidelines shouldn't be mentioned here since the author of this really didn't go into his MMA career. He also generally seems to be a figure of interest in Armenia judging by the references. The "News" section needs cleaned up or removed though. KatoKungLee ( talk) 21:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The number of wiki pages he has does not impact notability on the English WP. I have corrected the article's incorrect claims of a bronze medal at the 2020 World Cup--which was downgraded from an official world championship event because at least 8 of the world's top countries did not participate (due to Covid-19). Junior championships do not show notability and he has yet to have success as an adult at a major world event. I'm not voting to delete the article, which is my inclination, because I haven't looked at the sources to see if WP:GNG is met. Papaursa ( talk) 14:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. There are 50 sources in this article, WTF. We can immediately discount those that are obviously non-independent: his own website, UWW (8 refs), the Armenian National Olympic Committee (3 refs); primary: youtube and flowrestling videos of fights (10 refs); unreliable sources: panarmenian.net, blognews.am. Of the remaining 26 sources, 4 are routine fight/transactional press: [33], [34], [35], [36]; 3 are essentially database entries: [37], [38], [39]; 13 are trivial/passing mentions: [40] and [41] (identical), [42], [43] and [44] (identical), [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]; 2 are Q&A interviews: [53], [54]; 2 I can't access (Vnews.am)

Only two articles had anything that could possibly contribute to BASIC: one is just six sentences of mostly-independent background info before an interview: [55], the other contains 8 sentences in an interview intro that are a mix between independent and reporting what Papikyan "wants" or "feels" (not independent): [56]. Altogether, I am not seeing a GNG pass. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: Per deep dive and rational completed by JoelleJay. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 11:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ching Hkran Dam

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

Little to no verified/reliable sources; may not exist and most likely does not meet WP:GNG. Can't find on GMaps, coordinates/spelling in Burmese unknown. Kazamzam ( talk) 17:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam ( talk) 17:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment for any intrepid source-seekers: some references make a passing mention of Ching Hkran as Chying Hkran - this was not fruitful in my WP:BEFORE searching. Kazamzam ( talk) 17:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment I've expanded the article a bit with [57]. It would be best to know the native script version of the name to check for better sources, but I don't have a clue about the Burmese alphabet. small jars t c 22:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't seem to find what the Burmese/Jinpho name is. That would be helpful. Trying "ချင်းခြန်" or "ချင်ခြန်" didn't get me very far. For now, I looked through the 2019 GAD Report for Myitkyina Township has nothing about this dam or the village within its (burmese language) map. EmeraldRange ( talk/ contribs) 12:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete following EmeraldRange's research, which suggests that neither the dam or the village it's named after are notable. small jars t c 23:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete I withheld voting earlier to see if someone could provide the Burmese name or source, but the dam does not seem notable and fails WP:GEOFEAT if it is not even recognized at the local level. EmeraldRange ( talk/ contribs) 14:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Taung Tan ( talk) 06:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 00:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Chermen Valiev

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

Amateur wrestler fails WP:GNG Nswix ( talk) 17:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Gold Medalist at the European Junior Championships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There is no SIGCOV in the article and none has been presented here. Alvaldi ( talk) 20:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, no evidence GNG has been met. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hayk Papikyan

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

Amateur wrestler fails WP:GNG Nswix ( talk) 16:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - There's some coverage on him and he has won Junior European Titles. KatoKungLee ( talk) 22:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. The first four sources are either from UWW.org (non-independent) or primary match coverage, N. 5 is a routine results announcement, N. 6 is a Q&A interview with about one independent sentence, N. 7–9 and 11 are primary match coverage on youtube, N. 10 is a routine results announcement, N. Ditto for 12, N. 13 is another non-independent UWW piece, N. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Per source analysis completed by JoelleJay. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 08:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Zaurs Džavadovs

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

Fails WP:NKICK, WP:NBOX and WP:GNG Nswix ( talk) 16:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Latvia. Nswix ( talk) 16:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Boxing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
As I am not an enthusiast of martial arts sports or boxing, I cannot comment on the first two guidelines, but I would like a more detailed explanation on how this athlete of considerable national importance (in terms of Latvian sport) breaches WP:GNG. Ivario ( talk) 09:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
KEEP - He held multiple WKN titles, which the Kickboxing Project cites as being notable (just competing on a WKN show makes you) - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Kickboxing_task_force#Notability and he did a Nike commercial - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDapU5aXgE0.He also has a nice amount of Google News articles about him - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Zaurs+D%C5%BEavadovs%22&client=firefox-b-1-d&tbm=nws&ei=ENP_Y-jPGPvl5NoPhuu9oA8&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjol9SS5bv9AhX7MlkFHYZ1D_QQ8NMDegQIBBAI&biw=1920&bih=955&dpr=1 KatoKungLee ( talk) 22:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment I see no place where it says just competing on a WKN card shows notability. The existing notability criteria for kickboxers is WP:NKICK. Appearing in a commercial is also not a notability criteria. I haven't done the research to make an informed vote on notability. Papaursa ( talk) 13:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. The kickboxing project is not a guideline and is thus irrelevant. What matters is GNG. [58] is a primary blow-by-blow fight summary that was written by his PR rep Janis Eisaks, N. [59] is another primary fight recap with little secondary content, N. [60] is six sentences of mostly routine fight results, N. [61] is an interview, and almost everything that isn't in quotes is still non-independent, e.g. "Džavadovs reveals" or "Džavadovs found", rather than analysis by the author, N. [62] is a write-up on his wedding with an unclear amount of info provided directly from Janis Eisaks... [63] is another fight recap from Eisaks, N. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the Kickboxing Project is irrelevant as it cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Alvaldi ( talk) 20:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete He's had some success as a kickboxer, but not enough to meet WP:NKICK. The other day I went through the history of Combat Press's world kickboxing rankings and did not see him mentioned once. The references seem to be routine sports results and nothing that would support a claim of meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 21:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Chris Reynolds (Quadrillionaire)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, short-lived faits-divers without lasting notability. WP:PSEUDO also applies: " If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all." Fram ( talk) 16:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Fram ( talk) 16:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Meets WP:GNG due to significant coverage. KatoKungLee ( talk) 17:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:SUSTAINED and the links given in the deletion statement. Meeting the GNG narrowly isn't sufficient to be kept, though not meeting the GNG is usually sufficient to be deleted. Fram ( talk) 17:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

delete obviously Broken Segue 17:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - clearly a case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - I don't think a bank error/glitch needs its own article. Americanfreedom ( talk) 18:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - Promo language and WP:REFBOMB for a page that seems to be more about PayPal than about the subject; it could be included in the PayPal article as an example of major glitch, but that's really it. Ppt91 ^talk 18:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak merge to PayPal per PPT91. (Perhaps this topic deserves its own section there?) -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Clear case of WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: per above, 1E with no LASTING. BLPs need clearly reliable sourcing, this does not. // Timothy :: talk 14:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Tatsumi Fuwa

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

No independent notability, anything relevant can be merged to Sign Gene.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also unnecessary offshoots of the film's article with no independent SIGCOV.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. JohnmgKing ( talk) 16:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect, fail WP:GNG, reception is copypaste same content about the game. Unnecessary split of WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete more very odd fancruft for this obscure superhero flick. Dronebogus ( talk) 10:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Trans Safety Network

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

The coverage about this organization is mostly trivial or routine quotes and mentions. In a thorough WP:BEFORE done by me, which included searches in newspaper archives, books, and journals, only mentions were found, like trivial mentions related to an event, Killing of Brianna Ghey, from their spokesperson, and likewise mentions after an unfortunate event, the suicide of Alice Litman. Others are mentions quoting their researcher, Mallory Moore, after an event such as Texas shooting. So, all of them are either statements from the organization (as an advocacy group) after an event, or trivial mentions defining them as an advocacy group in one sentence. This is nothing close to WP:ORGDEPTH.

This lack of coverage is also reflected in the article itself. WP:REFBOMBING has been used in the introductory sentence, citing references that are just mentioning the organization. Ref 8 from Pink News is a brief one-sentence that has been written in this article. Lastly, the mission statement is copied and cited with their website. It is too early to write an article about them as they clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Suitskvarts ( talk) 16:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sexuality and gender. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete – lacks WP:SIGCOV. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. I did my own web-search but found nothing except for more brief mentions and/or primary sources. KhinMoTi ( talk) 08:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. I spent some time searching around, but found nothing significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified ( talk) 15:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: the sources cited do not indicate any in-depth coverage of this organization, not even substantial mentions. Therefore it fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORG, WP:NCORP. // MitYehor ( talk) 06:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per above. Given that there are quite a few incoming links, most of them from where the organisation has been quoted, redirection would be preferable to deletion if there is a suitable target, but there doesn't appear to be one. The closest to significant coverage I found was at Shash Appan who is the only one of the five key people listed in the infobox to have an article, but even that is less than a single sentence saying she serves as a director. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Lolo Heimuli

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

Doesn't meet WP:NKICK Nswix ( talk) 16:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and New Zealand. Nswix ( talk) 16:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep I havnt participated in these for a while so excuse me if i buggar this up. I believe it bearly meets WP:GNG and the coach has made sagnificant contributions to the Kickboxing, MMA and Boxing Communities in New Zealand, Tonga and Australia. However the article itself is extremely outdated and needs a really good facelift. -- Bennyaha ( talk) 20:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Side note I did create this article but I just don't have the time to upkeep this particular article or update it currently. Bennyaha ( talk) 20:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: - plenty of references, clearly passes WP:GNG, so WP:NKICK is irrelevant.-- IdiotSavant ( talk) 01:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment All the references are in the list of students he's coached. There are plenty of coaches I could find with notable students that doesn't make them notable. Nswix ( talk) 01:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 16:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails GNG. [64] is a trivial quote by Heimuli, N. [65] is entirely primary interview content, N. [66] is non-independent non-RS from a kickboxing school, N. [67] has two sentences on him, with the rest being either quotes or on one of his fighters, N. [68] is non-RS that doesn't even mention him, N. [69] is almost pure interview material in local media promoting his gym (the end literally gives the gym's address and his contact info), N. [70] is non-independent, N. [71] and [72] are deadlinks, but from the refss are likely non-independent content from a sports body, N. [73] doesn't mention him, N. [74] I can't access, but seems to be an announcement in local media, ?. [75] is his name in a list, N. [76] is some trivial quotes by him, N. [77] is a trivial mention, N. [78] is a trivial mention in a quote, N. [79] is dead, but from the citation is not independent, N. [80] is a passing mention, N. [81] is a trivial mention in a quote, N. [82] ditto, N. [83] is a trivial mention in a photo caption, N. [84] is dead, but is likely routine fight coverage of someone other than Lollo, N. [85] has basically no direct independent coverage, N. [86] is the best of the lot, but is heavily reliant on quotes and primary content, N. [87] is nothing, N. [88] is a trivial mention, N. [89] is entirely quotes from Heimuli, N. [90] contains an ok amount of independent coverage, but appears to be from a defunct website with no evidence of reliability (no About Us or contact info), N. [91] is entirely quotes by him save for one sentence, N. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete He's clearly has had some success as both a fighter and coach, but not enough to meet any SNG. I looked at most of the article's references and I agree with JoelleJay's assessment of the sources. I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of him that meets WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 21:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Promotional BLP with no SIGCOV from Ind RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. JoelleJay source assessment is accurate, keep voters above give provide no sources, just statements, no BEFORE. BLP article require clear and accurate sourcing for notability and content, this has neither. // Timothy :: talk 14:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes. There is consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Jux Clerc

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

Not independently notable. Reception section isn't about the character, but about the film. Merge relevant content to Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes JohnmgKing ( talk) 16:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. JohnmgKing ( talk) 16:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. Reception is about the game, not the character. Can redirect as a SOFTDELETE alternative, I guess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete could probably have just been PRODded. Secondary characters from single obscure films are almost never notable. Dronebogus ( talk) 10:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Sign Gene. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 16:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

1.8.8.0.

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

Not independently notable. Very little to merge to Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes, but anything relevant can be. JohnmgKing ( talk) 16:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. JohnmgKing ( talk) 16:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge to Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes. No independent notability from the film. QuicoleJR ( talk) 16:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG. Not seeing what needs to be merged, although I am not opposed to it. Can redirect to I guess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes. The relevant material is already at the target article, so there is nothing to merge. Joyous! Noise! 18:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete implausible redirect target. Nobody is going to know what this means outside of whatever very small following this film has. Dronebogus ( talk) 10:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Not notable alone. Only passing mention about the subject in reference Christopheronthemove ( talk) 19:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect and selective merge per nom. Frank Anchor 13:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Main claim to fame seems to be a film that was previously deleted. Recommendations of those accounts that seem to be very new and very focused on only this topic were given pretty light consideration. I have some concerns about possible sockpuppetry in this discussion. Joyous! Noise! 02:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Jayaram Kailas

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}}

.

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was soft deleted a few weeks back. My concerns remains the same. The only notable film directed by the subject is Akkaldhamayile Pennu. This is not enough to establish notability according to WP:GNG. The only useful source that has been found is an interview regarding the film. Other sources are about an unreleased film titled Ambalamukkile Visheshangal. There is no in-depth coverage outside of this source other than some brief mentions to meet GNG. To satisfy WP:FILMMAKER, the subject's works must have received any major awards. Other than Akkaldhamayile Pennu receiving special jury mention at Kerala Film Critics Association Awards, there are no other claims to establish notability per WP:FILMMAKER. Akevsharma ( talk) 15:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Akevsharma ( talk) 15:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. I would weakly support salt as well, as I suspect folks won't get the message. UtherSRG (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: Akkaldhamayile Pennu, the film directed by him, is not a notable film as it fails WP:NFILM and there are no reviews in a google search. I have also nominated that film for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akkaldhamayile Pennu. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ ^{Let's Talk !} 19:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Searched for sources in English as well as Malayalam. Unfortunately reliable sources are not present other than those already present in the article. 111.92.118.94 ( talk) 08:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Reply This IP has edited only on one day and that too mainly for giving delete comment in discussions of this page and the related page. It maybe the nominator or the one who desperately trying to delete both these pages. I don't know why they doing such tactics to delete these pages Christopheronthemove ( talk) 17:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep He is a Kerala Film Critics Association Awards special jury award winner for direction and there are many detailed article about him and his movies. Both his movies listed has enough detailed articles references Christopheronthemove ( talk) 10:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: The user has been voting on multiple AFDs despite having joined less than a day ago. Akevsharma ( talk) 12:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: He has directed one movie and most of the references are about the movie. The award is not that recognisable ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1010:2900:4423:2CC8:73B9:AE64 ( talk) 15:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Reply Again an IP Christopheronthemove ( talk) 17:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep Would seem notable, according to some sources on the page or this review/interview in Silverscreenindia, for example.— MY OH MY! 17:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
You have made an incorrect assessment of the source. The source pertains to an unreleased film directed by Jayaram Kailas, which does not contribute towards establishing notability according to the WP:GNG. To establish notability, we require sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject, which are currently unavailable. Akevsharma ( talk) 00:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep As non trivial notability is proved Vishnu005clt ( talk) 17:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note:This user has made very few edits outside to this topic and their last recent edit was in December 2022. I am curious as to why an inactive account is now suddenly jumping into an AFD discussion. This is now turning to a venue for sockpuppetry. Akevsharma ( talk) 00:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

To the closing admin: Note that certain accounts with a single purpose, which were created after the opening of this AFD, as well as some sleeper accounts that appeared after this AFD commencement, have now appeared to vote here. This is now becoming a venue of sockpuppetry. Of particular importance, Jehowahyereh, who requested the restoration of this previously soft-deleted article, has been confirmed to have abused Wikipedia by using multiple accounts. I request that the closing admin take note of this and a look at Jehowahyereh's talk page to obtain a clearer understanding. Akevsharma ( talk) 00:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jehowahyereh. Akevsharma ( talk) 11:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: The sole justification for keeping the article intact was the fact that the individual had won a special jury award for directing the movie "Akkaldhamayile Pennu" at the Kerala Film Critics Association Awards. However, as the article about the movie itself has been removed as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akkaldhamayile Pennu. This makes the subject the director of a single non- notable film. Akevsharma ( talk) 00:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

George Shedden

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

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which tells us Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. Cannot be converted into a redirect as there are two other articles that mention a George Shedden; Frederick Shedden and 1926 Birthday Honours. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:DABMENTION: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. Such entries are notable for purposes of inclusion in a disambiguation page. -- Tavix ^(
talk) 18:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
MOS:DABMENTION is a guideline, WP:NOT is a policy. Per WP:POLCON, when a guideline and policy conflict, we follow the policy. BilledMammal ( talk) 18:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:DABMENTION defines notability for the purposes of inclusion within disambiguation entries. There is no conflict. -- Tavix ^(
talk) 18:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
NOTDIRECTORY is referring to WP:N when it says just the notable ones; the word "notable" links to that page. DABMENTION also makes no mention of notability. BilledMammal ( talk) 18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - I disagree. When creating this page nothing was further from my mind than a listing of every George Shedden, but here we have two people about whom WP already has substantive encyclopaedic biographical content. At least one of them is likely to be individually notable, and could sustain a George Shedden at that name. What is unusual is that, in this case, instead of a Shedden Family-type article, of which there are many in WP, the biographical detail is presented in the context of (but not limited to) the family seat. I had in mind the leading sentences in WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content; and, so far as DAB guidance is concerned, see WP:DABRELATED. The page was created precisely because, looking for information about Sir George Shedden, it had taken quite some time to alight at the right place - access for readers should be straightforward. Revisiting this, I see that I forgot to add a third George of the same family, who should be at least a "see also": George Powell-Shedden. Davidships ( talk) 19:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION and WP:USEFUL. Boleyn ( talk) 20:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The Bank of India (1836)

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

No evidence of any notability, and claims in the article don't match the passing mentions ("The bank played a key role in the history of Banking in India" sourced to a list which includes this bank as "stillborn"?) or don't convey any notability (being the 18th something is hardly special). Fram ( talk) 15:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Business, Economics, India, and England. Fram ( talk) 15:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - nothing to suggest it is particularly noteworthy and the refs on the page only mention it in passing JMWt ( talk) 16:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete -- One of the sources cited (a website) describes it as stillborn. It also mentions another bank of the same name of 1828, presumably also shortlived. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Non-notable bank. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: the argumentation for this bank's notability is ludicrous. Reference #4 is simply a list, without any proof of significance. // MitYehor ( talk) 06:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - on the basis of the evidence presented and the absence of any other sources, it does not seem to be notable enough for its own article. Dunarc ( talk) 22:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Lenny's Pizza

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

Seems to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Besides the fact it was in a scene in Saturday Night Fever, I can find nothing notable about this pizzeria. It is not even in the National List of Historic Places or any other article-worthy lists. The local coverage on its recent closing does not merit notability either as they all mention it was best known for being in that film. I noticed its article does not mention the pizzeria at all, so maybe there should be a sentence or two about it there. The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 14:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 6. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: This is a misinterpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED. Of course every news article is going to mention that the pizzeria was on SNL; it would be strange if they didn't. The relevant standards here are WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. We have multiple independent reliable secondary sources, providing significant coverage of the pizzeria -- pretty much every one distinguishing it as "iconic," "famous," etc. "Local" is a bit blurry to assess since NYC is where the majority of national US media companies are based, but we have Food and Wine, CBS, and MSN, etc. covering it. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 16:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: Has enough coverage and per Gnomingstuff. Nocturnal781 ( talk) 22:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: Coverage is significant enough, although I heard their pizza was overrated. Wil540 art ( talk) 01:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep per Gnomingstuff. I don't think it's a slam-dunk for notability, but it just about clears the GNG hurdle, I think. More regional/national coverage like this recent Food and Wine article would be good, and I suspect there is some that just isn't easily googleable (since its popularity was at its peak pre-internet). It got a lot of attention from the SNF appearance, and continued to get coverage because that made it one of the best known pizzerias in the city. It wasn't a particularly good pizzeria, but kind of a cultural landmark. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak keep: Rhododendrites has aptly described where my mind is at on this. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of long-period comets. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 13:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

C/2014 G3 (PanSTARRS)

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

The only coverage is from databases and the discovery announcement in MPEC and CBET, and thus fails in WP:NASTCRIT, according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed. The paper used to verify the spectrum refers to a different comet, C/2014 S3 (PanSTARRS), not this one. Redirect to List of long-period comets. C messier ( talk) 13:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of long-period comets: there is not enough WP:SIGCOV from the sources cited in the article for it to pass WP:NASTCRIT or WP:GNG. Significant coverage is also lacking from other sources, so redirection seems to be the best option. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 16:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of long-period comets as per the nominator and InterstellarGamer12321. ¹⁴¹ Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 16:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete.

Deleted CSD G5 Creation by banned or blocked users. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Memohwiki Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The Vach

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}}

.

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable online newspaper fails to demonstrate the notability per WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. Primary, unreliable and irrelevant sources. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 12:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Websites, and Canada. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 12:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I believe it includes a number of secondary sources, only primary are YouTube and the relevent official website. Notability was mentioned with viewership Tommiyn12 ( talk) 16:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Few to no reliable, secondary sources. QuicoleJR ( talk) 16:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Save Has a couple reliable secondary sources like The Verge, Vice, etc.. Suggest keeping it as a stub or putting minimal source notice Thephotography ( talk) 17:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Includes reliable, sufficient secondary non-trivial sources per WP:WEBCRIT Looked into the site, holder won a YouTube Creator Awards not sure if that's relevant. Poabsi ( talk) 20:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Added to category of youth-led media where many sites are also stubs like this and do not use a lot of sources. Can be relevant in this context. Thephotography ( talk) 23:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)) –– Striking entire sockpuppet !vote. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Thephotography, Addition in youth led media wouldn't make it notable in anyway unless it passes the notability standard. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 02:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:NWEB. Its sole claim to fame is that the magazine's "holding company" was allegedly behind a fake YouTube video, but media coverage of that incident doesn't even mention the company by name.- KH-1 ( talk) 00:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep practically meets WP:NWEB contains multiple potential relevancy claims Tommiyn12 ( talk) 22:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep meets WP:SNG due to category and stub nature. Includes sufficient potentially relevant, reliable secondary sources as per WP:RS Assevrob ( talk) 22:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Assevrob, Can you please explain which sources are reliable for this article? Most of the sources given in the article are irrelevant and the subject is not mentioned even once. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 02:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I sense some socking going on or at least an off-wiki appeal to participate in this AFD. Actually, looking at the first AFD, I wonder if this article has once again been hijacked like it was before. It was once about a different subject entirely. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep as a stub, for now. This article seems to be somewhat relevant? but should remain as a stub to be expanded ModernSocietyLmAo ( talk) 08:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. I agree with Liz that there's clearly socking going on here that would probably make this G5-able but I'll make a substantial comment for the case that the sockpuppetry investigation takes a while. And that case is this: the sources in the article do not satisfy WP:GNG, nor WP:NWEB, nor WP:NCORP, and I cannot find sources online that do so. The sources in the article break down as follows:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
The Vach	This is the website's homepage.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
[voyagela.com/interview/inspiring-conversations-with-justin-jin-of-50mmidas/ Voyage LA Magazine	This is an interview with Justin Jin, who founded The Vach, and it was published in a PR publication.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF.	Clear independence issues aside, The Vach is mentioned only in passing.	✘ No
"About us" from The Vach	This is The Vach's about us page	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
Social Blade	Why not	Social Blade seems fine	This is a database entry.	✘ No
IMDB	IMDB pro account; not independent of Jin.	WP:IMDB	The Vach is mentioned only in passing.	✘ No
"We faked YouTube's oldest video" from The Vach	This is an article published on The Vach	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
Motherboard/Vice on TikTok	Motherboard and Vice are independent of this (I think).	~ Vice is WP:MREL on WP:RSP, and this is a TikTok.	The Vach is not so much as mentioned by name once.	✘ No
The Independent	U.K. Quality Press WP:NEWSORG	U.K. Quality Press WP:NEWSORG	The Vach is not so much as mentioned once in the entire article.	✘ No
The Verge	Why not?	Why not?	The Vach is not so much as mentioned once in the entire article.	✘ No
The Times of India	Why not?	~ See WP:TOI.	The Vach is not so much as mentioned once in the entire article.	✘ No
The Vach on YouTube	This is the YouTube channel for The Vach	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
Buzzfeed ( archive link)	? The author is a Buzzfeed community contributor, so that could be anyone including an author with a COI.	Buzzfeed community contributors are self-published blogposts.	? Moot as clearly unreliable.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

As the above clearly shows, none of the sources currently in the article contribute towards satisfying GNG. As any article that fails GNG is also going to fail WP:WEBCRIT, and as I found no sources that contribute towards GNG even after I went and looked online for sources. As such, I have to conclude that this should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8 for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep. Even if many of the references are non-independent, I can see that pieces are included like The Independent, The Verge, and the Times of India, and GNG only requires "multiple" pieces of coverage. The "Enn" channel mentioned in all of these also references The Vach's parent company, so some changes obviously need to be done. In addition, the page does not seem promotional, and rather objective. Info Rail ( talk) 06:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The Independent, The Verge, and the Times of India articles don't even mention The Vach at all, so they by definition fail WP:GNG. — Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 06:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Info Rail, The Independent, The Verge, and the Times of India, are reliable and independent but do not have significance as editor mentioned in the table. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 06:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete The only actual significant coverage shown is from a community made Buzzfeed article, which fails RS requirements since it isn't by an actual journalist working for Buzzfeed News. Other than that, the other sources don't even mention the subject of this article, so fail at having significant coverage. Unless proper in-depth sourcing from reliable sources can be presented, this article completely fails to meet the WP:GNG. Silver seren^C 06:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Based on source analysis it doesn't meet GNG. Gusfriend ( talk) 09:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Red-tailed hawk did an excellent source assessment table that clearly shows this article does not meet notability requirements. The keep votes above fail to show which references show notability. The clear socking is also a problem that the closing admin should look into if it hasn't been done already. // Timothy :: talk 10:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Conservative Baptist Association of the Southeast

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't see anything which meets the GNG JMWt ( talk) 11:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and United States of America. JMWt ( talk) 11:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete -- I can find nothing on a google search, other than this article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete no sources to be found on this page or anywhere else. Highway 89 ( talk) 23:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, fails WP:NORG. Good catch btw. US-Verified ( talk) 15:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Sham Mong Road

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is supported only by official documents published by the HK government entities (the Housing Authority, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, the transit authority). This is not independent, reliable coverage and therefore cannot support the notability of the article. My WP:BEFORE also did not turn up any significant coverage of the street per se independent of the HK government. Fails WP:NGEO. FOARP ( talk) 11:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Hong Kong. FOARP ( talk) 11:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Mere description that a road exists with some fairly routine places along it, no sourcing to indicate notability. Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete given that the zhwiki and zhyuewiki articles are about the same and that this is essentially a city street with no additional evidence of notability. -- Rs chen 7754 01:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. There are tons of sources that say something about this road yet I could find no significant coverage. gidonb ( talk) 23:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Nam Cheong Park, a major park along the road, per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb ( talk) 23:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty ( talk) 11:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thor3D

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - coverage is focussed on individual products rather than the company itself. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Germany, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty ( talk) 11:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ngau Kok Wan

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

Unreferenced since March 2007, searches for "Ngau Kok Wan" and "牛角灣" bring up only passing mentions. Appears to be basically a cement factory and so fails WP:CORP, but even if WP:NGEO is used this is not a legally-recognised populated place and as such needs to pass WP:GNG, which it doesn't at least based on the references I've seen in my WP:BEFORE search. FOARP ( talk) 11:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Hong Kong. FOARP ( talk) 11:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of first women's ice hockey internationals per country: 1987-1999

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

This was draftified months ago because "Incomplete, unsourced, of dubious notability as a list topic", but now moved back to mainspace without improvements. Fram ( talk) 10:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Ice hockey, and Lists. Fram ( talk) 10:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I myself have found contradictions in my research which is why I am hesitant to go further but I don’t understand what you find practical about deletion. Dweisz94 ( talk) 10:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The article currently fails to demonstrate WP:V and so would require deletion unless the information can be verified. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

This gets fixed either by me inputting reliable sources or someone else doing it, what is the benefit of simply deleting the article, an article should be deleted only if the idea of the article is bad. Dweisz94 ( talk) 16:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Have you found any reliable sources for any of the content? WP:V is a policy and, yes, absolutely we should delete articles unless they can be verified by at least one reliable source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I haven't found reliable sources online but I'm sure they exist for now as witnesses of every nations first womens ice hockey international are still alive, there are experts available to expand the page Dweisz94 ( talk) 19:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Even if a former ice hockey player came along and edited the article and confirmed that the information is correct like you say, it would still be a violation of WP:NOR as Wikipedia does not publish original research. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

If you haven't found reliable sources online, your "surety" is simply wishful thinking. WP:V requires that those sources be produced, or the article deleted. It is not the job of "experts" or anyone else to do the work for you. Ravenswing 22:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, don't draftify again. A list consisting of only the first international matches of each country's women's ice hockey teams seems like trivia. No sources have been provided to verify the information nor to demonstrate that this is a notable topic for an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
This same rationale applies to List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999 and since 2000. Those two articles are both exclusively sourced to one fan site, which itself lists no references. Ignoring the single-source issue, those two lists are referenced (and the references could be used to bolster this list and the draft of the women's post-2000 list), but the question remains: why? What about a list of the first games played by any country's men's or women's hockey teams makes it a notable topic for an encyclopedia, and where are the sources to explain that and provide context? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999 for the above mentioned lists. Flibirigit ( talk) 16:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - unless at least one reliable source can be provided to verify the content of the article, it must be deleted per WP:V. If anyone at any point does find a reliable source for this content, please ping me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep- Offering men and women seperately offers more information, references aren't listed but are indirectly existing from other Wikipedia pages whom those themselves do list references, the information is verified, simply further effort is required. Dweisz94 ( talk) 20:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: There being no references isn't just some issue that needs to be fixed; it disqualifies the article in their absence. Quite aside from my agreement with Ivanvector that this would be trivial even if sourced, Dweisz94 has had months to properly source this article, and it should never have been created in the first place if they had neither the time or the inclination to do so. That Dweisz94 doesn't seem to comprehend that an article meeting WP:V is a fundamental requirement is troubling. Ravenswing 22:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Your incomplete inference trivia referred to trivial, I believe I will move this to drafts until I find references. Dweisz94 ( talk) 22:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Liz has reverted, but I'll chime in: are you not seeing that the broad sentiment here is that the article is too trivial to remain on Wikipedia, sourcing or no? Ravenswing 15:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I apologize, this isn't an intelligence issue and an impression of a raw unified platform for knowledge, this is an understanding of Wikipedia's culture so I was incorrect on how I dealt with this issue and am glad to understand democracy is coincidentally in Wikipedia's culture and let it be Dweisz94 ( talk) 00:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. Don't bother wasting more time with this in draftspace - even if this had sources, it is not a notable topic to begin with. Highway 89 ( talk) 23:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Dweisz94, you moved this article to Draft space and removed the AFD tag. I've reverted you. Doing this won't stop this deletion discussion. Please do not move the article while this discussion is ongoing. If you believe it should be moved to Draft space, then put in a vote to Draftify. Thank you. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete and also delete the men's lists. There may be a worthy history that describes the entry of countries into competition, starting with those in Europe and later smaller and more tropical countries, but I don't see the trivia of what the score was against what opponent warranting stand-alone lists without broader discussion of the topic in sources rather than just verification of individual games. Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete as WP:TRIVIA, and delete the men's list too for the same reason. Any encyclopedic content about first matches for a country can be added to the country's team articles, don't need pointless intersection of countries' first matches. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails to to meet WP:LISTN, with no reliable sources to validate why such a standalone list should exist. Flibirigit ( talk) 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: I'll echo the above and reference WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and unsourced. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and some of the above, although no objection to draftifying if Dweisz94 wants to continue looking for sources and agrees not to put it in main space until that happens. Rlendog ( talk) 20:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
This is clearly a topic of multiple questions if it’s first actually a good idea and then second if it’s a good idea either frankly the moronic suggestion it must be deleted because it doesn’t have references or if it should be drafted until I find references, Wikipeda’s deletion article circumstances seem to currently not support this complication. Dweisz94 ( talk) 21:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Easygenerator

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

WP:PROMOTIONAL article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Just another non-notable mid-tier software company failing WP:CORP MNewnham ( talk) 03:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Software, Philippines, United Arab Emirates, Netherlands, Ukraine, and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: WP:PROMOTIONAL article per nom. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 03:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Non-notable software company fails WP:NCORP and is also WP:PROMOTIONAL. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. Small software company that fails NCORP, as does the parent company for which we do not have an article to redirect to anyway. The grandparent company probably meets the bar and has an article only on Dewiki. So no case for WP:ATD on Enwiki. Remains to delete. gidonb ( talk) 15:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NCORP per nom. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. A possible merge or redirect can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty ( talk) 15:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

U with ring above (Cyrillic)

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

Created by User:Cyrilliclols, whose username may be significant. and who has previously created О with left notch. Although this article has a cite, the cite given is to a Pinterest page which points to an original source page that does not seem to support the article.

However, there is a character resembling this in Shughni language, so it's possible this might be a good faith contribution, but even if this is a real character, this article would still need a source to be kept. — The Anome ( talk) 10:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment the label at the top of the page says it shouldn't be confused with Y̊ which is a redirect to Ring (diacritic) which seems to be a mistake to me. It seems like the letter we are talking about is indeed Y̊. There is some confusion here, but if there really is a letter then it would appear to me notable, no? JMWt ( talk) 11:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Further thought - wiktionary appears to cover the alphabet in different written scripts pretty well. On that basis, I think delete because WP:NOTDICTIONARY and because wiktionary appears to be a better venue. Is it possible to redirect to wiktionary? JMWt ( talk) 11:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Sort of, but you need a special template linking to the corresponding page in Wiktionary. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep or at least merge to U (Cyrillic). This is definitely a real thing, the pinterest pic is from Omniglot, [92] and there's an example text in Makarov, Yuri; Melenchenko, Maksim; Novokshanov, Dmitry. "Digital Resources for the Shughni Language" (PDF). Proceedings of the EURALI Workshop @LREC2020: 63. Retrieved 6 March 2023.; Xudowandard půnd jītet at wi roh yen rost kinet, which clearly contains the ů (although its presented in Latin). If it's too obscure for a standalone article we can describe it in a single sentence in U (Cyrillic)#Related letters and other similar characters. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. The little it's been discussed, it seems the general consensus is that Omniglot is not RS (see here and its couple other links). The PDF above isn't even using this letter; it's using a Latin variation. Even if this does exist (and that's a pretty iffy if at the moment), it's a minor point in Shugni orthography, and definitely not notable enough for its own article. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 15:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge to U (Cyrillic). If the existence of this letter can be confirmed, it should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, but this isn't worth a standalone article. Highway 89 ( talk) 23:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep for consistency as all other Cyrillic letters, even obscure ones, have their own articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Gugrak ( talk) 11:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

This is a bizarre OR list with no indication of notability Gugrak ( talk) 10:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gugrak ( talk) 10:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - I have to admit that I was very ready to press the "delete" button on this one based on the strange title, but once I looked at the article I noted that, yes, there are a lot of reliable sources that list and describe places that are obfuscated on Google maps for privacy/secrecy reasons and so-forth. To pass WP:LISTN all that is needed is evidence that multiple reliable sources treat the the list-items as a collective group, and that is shown by the Times of India article, Washington Post article, and others. Possibly the article could be renamed, but that is a different discussion. Similarly accuracy and WP:OR issues can be fixed with ordinary editing. FOARP ( talk) 11:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per FOARP. The article is not without issues, but the sources provided are valid and thus the topic passes WP:NLIST. Highway 89 ( talk) 23:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per FOARP Dream Focus 00:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep I have resolved the OR concerns as well by removing all of the entries that were unsourced or supported only by a satellite map. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Durusu gas field

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

I looked into this while preparing gas in Turkey and no gas was ever produced from this field. The few sources say that Durusu-1 was a dry well e.g. https://www.slideshare.net/asefunc/drilling-results-2007-2009-in-the-western-black-sea-targeted-on-neogene-deep-and-shallow-water-sediments-ipetgas2011 Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 11:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

CNBC Tonight

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

No refs on the page since 2007, nothing significant found that meets the GNG. Seems there is unlikely to be anything to find about a short-lived business news programme. JMWt ( talk) 10:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Asia, and Singapore. JMWt ( talk) 10:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - Searching is not made easy by the very large number of sources just talking about what is happening on CNBC "tonight", but I cannot find anything in my WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV. FOARP ( talk) 11:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Utterly generic business news rundown. Nate • ( chatter) 22:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete : No reference Christopheronthemove ( talk) 19:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. Since the article has no sources, I went ahead and searched for some that might warrant adding. Unfortunately I didn’t find anything meeting criteria that would even establish notability for the subject. Shawn Teller ( talk) 00:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Clan Gregor. Content is in the page history if anyone wants to merge any. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Clan Gregor Society Pipe Band

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

No refs on the page for many years, no way to verify the information

Also no indication of RS that meet the GNG that I can find JMWt ( talk) 10:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Scotland. JMWt ( talk) 10:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Clan Gregor I found a source confirming the band's dissolution but nothing else. Perhaps worth a brief mention at the article about the clan itself. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 19:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect: The pipe band by itself is not notable, and its only wins were in the lower division of a (and I say this as someone who loves the activity) minor competition. No opposition to a minor mention on the parent page, although I do not know how encyclopedic that would be considering the absolute lack of any sources. Why? I Ask ( talk) 09:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5 $Salvio giuliano$ 08:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Jayalakshmidevi

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

Similar case to Devamala (Shunga dynasty), Bhanumati (Kushana Empress) and Kimveka (Mahabharata) in that there are no sources that support WP:V let alone WP:GNG. Nothing in Google Books to verify the existence of this person. Of course, Dhruva Dharavarsha must have had a mother but anyone insisting that her name was 'Jayalakshmidevi' needs to provide a reliable source or this is just a piece of original research, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. For precisely these reasons. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 09:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge/redirect to the succession section of her husband. The detail provided suggests that there are sources, but perhaps in Sanskrit, which will not work well with searches in Latin script. Nevertheless the content is purely genealogical, which we do not normally allow. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

What makes you so certain that this isn't a hoax, especially given the deletion of all of the previous similar articles like Devamala (Shunga dynasty) for the same reason? Also, doesn't retaining unverifiable content essentially violate WP:V and WP:NOR, which are policies? Please link us to at least one reliable source which proves that this is a legitimate topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, WP:BURDEN applies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge/redirect as per the argument by Peterkingiron. Historyday01 ( talk) 03:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge/redirect per Peterkingiron. Nocturnal781 ( talk) 06:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Which sourced content would you consider merging and to where? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Unable to find any sources on Google Books / Scholar with the spellings "Jayalakshmi", "Jayalakṣmī", "Jayalaksmi", "Jayalakshmidevi", "Jayalakṣmīdevī", or "Jayalaksmidevi". Given the article creator's history, this is likely a hoax. utcursch | talk 08:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
- Also searched for the Devanagari variants जयलक्ष्मी राष्ट्रकूट and जयलक्ष्मीदेवी राष्ट्रकूट. Zero mentions of this person. Plus, we have reasons to believe that the creator is a sock of a user banned several times for unsourced additions including hoaxes. utcursch | talk 20:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as per arguments of BTKCD, Spiderone, and utcursch. Kazamzam ( talk) 15:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, per BURDEN and the searches by the nom and Utcursch. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5 $Salvio giuliano$ 08:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Shubhapradha (Rashtrakuta Queen)

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

Similar case to Devamala (Shunga dynasty), Bhanumati (Kushana Empress) and Kimveka (Mahabharata) in that there are no sources that support WP:V let alone WP:GNG. Copied and pasted from Bharatpedia, which is unreliable. Nothing in Google Books to verify the existence of this person. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge/redirect to the succession section of her husband. The detail provided suggests that there are sources, but perhaps in Sanskrit, which will not work well with searches in Latin script. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

What makes you so certain that this isn't a hoax, especially given the deletion of all of the previous similar articles like Devamala (Shunga dynasty) for the same reason? Also, doesn't retaining unverifiable content essentially violate WP:V and WP:NOR, which are policies? Please link us to at least one reliable source which proves that this is a legitimate topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, WP:BURDEN applies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge/direct as per argument by Peterkingiron. There is ALWAYS an alternative to deletion, but some people on here seem to forget that. Historyday01 ( talk) 03:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Which sourced content would you consider merging and to where? Why merge or redirect an obvious hoax? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as hoax. Searched Google Books and Scholar for several variants including Devanagari and IAST: Dantidurga Shubhaprada / Dantidurga Shubhapradha / Dantidurga Śubhapradā / शुभप्रदा दंतिदुर्ग / शुभप्रदा दन्तिदुर्ग. Repeated this search replacing Dantidurga with Rashtrakuta, Rāṣṭrakūṭa, and राष्ट्रकूट. Zero mentions of this person. Plus, we have reasons to believe that the creator is a sock of a user banned several times for unsourced additions including hoaxes. utcursch | talk 20:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, no verifiable content whatsoever. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5 $Salvio giuliano$ 08:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Tarinidevi

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

Similar case to Devamala (Shunga dynasty), Bhanumati (Kushana Empress) and Kimveka (Mahabharata) in that there are no sources that support WP:V let alone WP:GNG. There are a lot of people called 'Tarinidevi' or 'Tarini Devi' in history but I can't find any that were the wife of Pulakeshin II. According to this edit, the article was on Bharatpedia but got removed by an admin. If this isn't acceptable enough for Bharatpedia's verifiability standards, I can't see why we should accept it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge/redirect to the succession section of her husband Pulakeshin II. The detail provided suggests that there are sources, but perhaps in Sanskrit, which will not work well with searches in Latin script. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

What makes you so certain that this isn't a hoax, especially given the deletion of all of the previous similar articles like Devamala (Shunga dynasty) for the same reason? Also, doesn't retaining unverifiable content essentially violate WP:V and WP:NOR, which are policies? Please link us to at least one reliable source which proves that this is a legitimate topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, WP:BURDEN applies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge/redirect. Peterkingiron makes a persuasive argument. I feel that a redirect would be much more appropriate than outright deletion in this case. Historyday01 ( talk) 03:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

His argument would be convincing if there were at least one WP:RS verifying at least one sentence of this article. Merging this to another article just simply moves the problem. Had someone added this text to another article in the first place, it would have been reverted with the edit summary WP:NOR, please cite a source or similar and no one would bat an eyelid. What sourced content do we lose if we delete this article? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Please note that even Bharatpedia didn't consider this article worthy of retaining so not sure why we would think otherwise. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as hoax. Searched Google Books and Scholar for several variants including Devanagari and IAST:
- Tarini Chalukya
- Tāriṇī Cālukya
- Tarini Calukya
- तारिणी चालुक्य
- Tarinidevi Chalukya
- Tāriṇīdevī Cālukya
- Tarinidevi Calukya
- तारिणीदेवी चालुक्य
Zero mentions of this person. Plus, we have reasons to believe that the creator is a sock of a user banned several times for unsourced additions including hoaxes. utcursch | talk 20:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. BURDEN requires content added to be sourced, so everything that was merged would be deleted immediately. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete - WP:CSD#G5, besides everything else brought up in the discussion. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Pushpavati

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

Similar case to Devamala (Shunga dynasty), Bhanumati (Kushana Empress) and Kimveka (Mahabharata) in that the content is copied at least partly from Bharatpedia. My searches are unable to establish WP:V let alone WP:GNG. Please note that this article did previously have one source but it was removed due to not supporting any content. I strongly oppose a redirect or merge to Harsha until a reliable source is presented to confirm that Pushpavati existed and was his wife. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge/redirect to her husband, rather than delete. I expect that any sources that exist are in Sanskrit, which may well hinder searching in Latin script. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

What makes you so certain that this isn't a hoax, especially given the deletion of all of the previous similar articles like Devamala (Shunga dynasty) for the same reason? Also, doesn't retaining unverifiable content essentially violate WP:V and WP:NOR, which are policies? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, WP:BURDEN applies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

~~Merge/redirect~~ Similar to the other similar discussions, I feel this is much more appropriate than deletion. Historyday01 ( talk) 03:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I presume you're here from Sanskrit search please. I trust that means you've got some evidence to confirm that this person existed to warrant the retention of a huge amount of what is otherwise WP:OR and very contradictory OR too. For example, this article says Pushpavati or Harshavardhanpriya was the wife of Emperor Harshavardhana who had no children at all but only one wife. then... Some stories say that Emperor Harshavardhana had married two wives but in some legends they mention Pushpavati. then... Later, Pushpavati bore two sons to Harshavardhana. Both of their sons, were killed by her husband, Harsha's minister, Arunāsva. Are we not better going off what WP:RS say rather than adding these bizarre ramblings to Harsha, which is a well referenced article? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as hoax. No mention in any reliable source. Searched Google Books for several variants including IAST and Devanagari: Pushpavati Harsha / पुष्पवती हर्ष / Puṣpavatī Harṣa / पुष्पावती हर्ष / Puṣpāvatī Harṣa / Puspavati Harsa. The creator is likely a sock of a user blocked several times for creating hoaxes. utcursch | talk 20:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete, multiple people have searched in multiple relevant languages and come up with nothing. Merge !votes are nonsensical. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment - so a lot has changed since this AfD was first filed. The creator of this article, User:Gomati Sharma, is now confirmed as a sockpuppet of vandal/hoaxer User:Shravani Chatterjee. From the investigation linked above by Utcursch, it's clear that this article is just another part of that same vandalism/hoax spree and clearly none of its contents are true. Merging all of these unsourced paragraphs into Harsha would be in complete violation of WP:V and morally wrong. WP:DON'T PRESERVE links us to several policies which tells us that this controversial material should be removed rather than preserved. Pinging @ Historyday01: and @ Peterkingiron: in case they wish to change their !vote in light of what has happened since and following the Sanskrit searches above, which yielded zero coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Just struck my vote. Historyday01 ( talk) 16:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as no references seen Christopheronthemove ( talk) 17:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. BusterD ( talk) 09:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Nala Money

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

Does not meet WP:GNG , and the article also has a promotional tone to it. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Tanzania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. ABHammad ( talk) 17:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to War in Donbas (2014–2022). There appears to be consensus that an independent article currently is not warranted. Different redirect targets are suggested, but "War in Donbas (2014–2022)" seems to be the most logical one. In any case, if deemed necessary, the target can be changed after a local discussion on the appropriate talk page. Randykitty ( talk) 10:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Alley of Angels

AfDs for this article:

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

No improvement since the last deletion - still no apparent notability, only RS is a BBC article that barely if at all mentions the monument. HappyWith ( talk) 07:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Dose the article mention the monument once. Seeing as it comes from 6 months before the monument it seems unlikely. Cakelot1 ( talk) 08:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

~~Speedy~~ Delete under G4 or Draftify as the user who moved out of draft space (@ Raven9nine:) hadn't worked on the draft at all before moving it. Cakelot1 ( talk) 08:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
~~Changing my vote to neutral.~~ After the changes made by Manyareasexpert and after I had a look for some more sources, I'm now unsure. The Ukraine version includes two interesting sources from ( hadiach.city and BBC News Ukraine) and google scolar turns up some other articles in addition to that one added by Manyareasexpert ( [93]) but as I can't access most of them right now it's impossible for me to say how in depth or reliable any of these are. I think it might be possible to develop the article in the direction that the rewrite is taking it. Cakelot1 ( talk) 17:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I checked ~~all the sources~~ all I could access on GScholar and there are mentions only, not enough to show notability. BBC - mention only, no notability. We are only left with hadiach.city . Manyareasexpert ( talk) 18:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Please also note WP:GS/RUSUKR. Mellk ( talk) 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Not sure what to get from there? Manyareasexpert ( talk) 18:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

It means you cannot make edits on articles with content related to Russo-Ukrainian War. Note that it also says non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area... Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations... You are not extended-confirmed. Mellk ( talk) 18:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The topic of this discussion refers to a monument for perished children created in 2015- 7 years prior Rus- Ukraine war, and obviously was NOT a subject to sanctions of October, 2022.

And even so, remedies application for sanctioned topic do call for a discretion.

Specifically: "administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required."

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian_War#Remedies GA Brac ( talk) 23:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Looks to be sufficient for a mention in an article about disinformation but not for a standalone article. So I do not see any difference compared to last time. Mellk ( talk) 18:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment (Apologies for my indecisiveness) After looking more into the available sources I've struck my neutral above and un-struck my original !vote. There just doesn't seem enough in death RS available for an article. Might warrant a brief mention somewhere. Cakelot1 ( talk) 17:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment. This was created by a non-extended-confirmed editor and we have WP:GS/RUSUKR. Mellk ( talk) 18:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Seems like we need to expand sources beyond BBC.Memorial for 150+ children is there without a doubt, with names, dates, age from 10 months old to 16. This is very notable and the sources are out there if we want them 64.121.202.111 ( talk) 09:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
First I'll point to WP:GS/RUSUKR discussed above and note you are not Extended Confirmed. Second, while I'm sure you can find WordPress blogs and propaganda channels taking about it, the operative word here is Reliable Sources. Your rewrite of the article is a perfect example of how little there is in RS. Half of your version is not even about the monument but an essay on civilian casualties ( Many other articles discuss such topics already).

Just for the avoidance of doubt let's go through each of the sources you included in your version: 1) A literal mirror of wiki article ( WP:CIRCULAR); 2/9) An article that does not discuss the subject at hand (and is from 6 months before it even existed); 3) random WordPress blog (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#WordPress.com and WP:BLOG); 4/6) A Publisher of "pro-Russian propaganda"; 5) just an image?; 7) I can't find anything on RSN about this one, but I'm very sceptical from the entire look of this site; 8) an unrelated twitter post; 10 An unrelated RT article (see WP:RT．COM); 11) a news aggregator; 12) More twitter 13) Possibly reliable but only mentions the topic in passing; 14) and finally More WordPress. Non-of these demonstrate notability and very few are even reliable. Cakelot1 ( talk) 18:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yep. These were the same problems that the original article had, too. I tried searching for RS back then before proposing the deletion, and there just weren't any - only a few scattered mentions. The topic simply isn't notable. HappyWith ( talk) 18:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The topic at hand is not related to Russo-Ukraine war sanction list, it was never marked as such. GA Brac ( talk) 23:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

For the sake of fairness and avoidance of doubt Cakelot1, let's look at what you call "interesting sources" from hadiach.city and BBC News Ukraine

1. A Hadiach town unsourced leaflet commentary has no merit to be mentioned being a clear example of personal opinion.

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." [94]

Just a Note: Hadiach is a small 250K population town in Poltava region that was not a part of any described events in isolated Donbass area.

2. Next you have Ukraine BBC emotional article based on unknown, untraceable third parties relating their personal experiences in Spring'22.

Not only the BBC content is hyped, unsourced and unverifiable it has no relation to, or even mention of the topic at hand- "Alley of Angels".

3. Finally, the last irrelevant, unsourced, heavily biased, funded open source Slavonic papers journal blog (see Predatory publishing [95]) being continuously republished on the page to some dishonest editors liking [96]

The author thanking sponsors and publisher warning of unreliability totally evades your attention to propaganda channels:

"Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Canadian Association of Slavists. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information" [97]

Seeing double standards and open bias many question the integrity and professionalism of Wiki now days- the source that was once reliable

Sad GA Brac ( talk) 05:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry but RUSUKR covers 2014 to present, including eastern Ukraine conflict. You cannot comment here and these comments should be removed. Mellk ( talk) 07:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry too that you strive to sensor and block users with no good reason.

This page is about memorial for children, not about using their graves for political insinuations. It should not be a controversial topic GA Brac ( talk) 10:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
If you want to edit in the topic area, you must first become an extended confirmed user, which you are not. If you do not wish to follow this and continue with the edits, then you will be blocked for violating the restriction. Mellk ( talk) 10:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I can't really spend much more time here, not what I want to.

I will be brief on your brushing off sources you did not bother to investigate or even read:

1.Wiki content deemed to be reliable if supported by reliable sources. We can use and mirror such content

2. BBC article informs you of specific cases of children being killed by shelling in Donetsk in Nov, 2014. The monument was dedicated to the very same children perished in the 1st year of war, with their names engraved in stone. You could easily read those names and dates of death if you wanted to see how relevant that BBC article was.

3. Widely known awards winning Canadian reporter Eva Bartlet is most verifiable source on the ground, not a random blogger. I'm sure you did not bother to see video documentaries she published from world hot spots b/c you like White Helmets better.

4. Everything printed in Russian seems like "pro Russian propaganda", isn't it?

5. Hundreds of memorial images on this page in case you want a close up to make sure it's actually there and see that children been killed months before erection of monument (BBC article)

7. Ukrainian media source, large enough to publish stock and currency exchange rates. But you must be sceptical b/c nobody told you they exist+ the look of that weird language again

8. UNICEF Ukraine verified Twitter page is an official source that confirms a number of children killed by mines in Donbass. Very relevant to the monument built in their memory.

10. Mass use of butterfly mines in residential areas was widely recorded

and reported. Majority of victims are children who are being maimed if not killed. The whole discussion is about dead children of Donbass, isn't it?

Another confusion for some editors: it must all be a lie b/c RT published it.

12. Official Tweets are used as statements in a Court of Law.

13. There is actually a few paragraphs, including this: "The German Children of War association, which implements the Alley of Angels project, has set up stands at a rally in Berlin with photographs of children killed by Ukrainian soldiers in Donbass since 2014".

14. And more Eva Bartlett presenting photo/video documents on indiscriminate shelling of civilians of all ages in Donetsk.

You labeled all of them as a Word Press blog

All of it is relevant, reliable and more than enough for a brief page on a very notable, even in Europe, children's memorial.

Yet you prefer to run with some predatory pub lunacy you find interesting for what I think is agenda politics, double standard and bias.

I don't think your opinion is valid.

I'd like to see this page to be expanded with current and other sources out there which I personally did not researched to potential.

The language can be def improved.

P.S. This project is under no restrictions, anyone can revise and publish. GA Brac ( talk) 09:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It’s not a matter of whether it exists, that’s pretty obvious. It’s a matter of whether it’s notable. HappyWith ( talk) 15:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikis are not reliable, they are user generated WP:UG. If there are reliable sources in them then cite those. As for your claims that your presenting the background by using unrelated tweets and articles that don't relate to the topic at hand, that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We need secondary sources to show that there is any reason this should be included per WP:DUE. Also, by Widely known awards winning Canadian reporter, do you mean "Russian based American Canadian activist, commentator, and blogger who has propagated conspiracy theories in connection to the Syrian civil war" who has "has been criticised for spreading Kremlin propaganda and misinformation". Somehow I don't think that would pass the exception of "established subject-matter expert" at WP:BLOGS.

As too the sources in the article they aren't good or in depth. The BBC one is probably the best and it isn't in depth. That's why I'm advocating deletion because I don't think this is a notable topic. The topic is "Alley of Angels" not "Child casualties in the war". None of the sources presented here or in that are in the article are Reliable and in depth enough to show notability. You haven't presented any, I haven't found any, and the article will be deleted unless we find multiple such sources. Cakelot1 ( talk) 17:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for this awesome research. HappyWith ( talk) 17:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 08:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per accurate research and sound arguments perpetrated by Cakelot1. Saintstephen000
Redirect, possibly to On conducting a special military operation or to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), merging that content in there. I have no doubt that scholarship in the next few years will make this notable, but for now it is not: the sourcing is simply not there, and whatever can be gleaned from "news" sources is simply too partisan to accept--we should not be using Ukrainian government sources or Russian state propaganda. [edit conflict] NO, do not delete: redirect. This content should be preserved. Drmies ( talk) 02:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
This article is about a memorial opened in 2015, 7 years before the Russian invasion. Redirecting to any of these articles would be an anachronism. If it is redirected to a broader topic, it should be redirected to War in Donbas (2014–2022), which is the actual context of the memorial. MarioGom ( talk) 07:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Or possibly Accusations of genocide in Donbas, Although there isn't really any content that could be merged into any of these targets (for lack of realy any sources) imo. Cakelot1 ( talk) 07:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to War in Donbas (2014–2022) per my comment above. MarioGom ( talk) 07:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. There is essentially no support for the present title. Arguments to keep and move are undercut by the virtual absence of sources discussing this topic as a topic presented here, and so there is a consensus to delete. This does not preclude an article about this topic based on new sources, or on ones not discussed here. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Palestinian intifada (2022–present)

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

This article is built upon an incredible amount of synthesis. The references DO NOT provide evidence for the existence of any current intifada. These references are mostly articles using it as a buzzword (for example, see the first Ynet citation). Using a word from here and there to support the existence of an event even though there is no consensus among sources that actually proves that event is occurring, is by definition WP:SYNTHESIS. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 23:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 23:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to 2022–2023 Israel–Palestine crisis or 2022–2023 wave of violence in Israeli–Palestinian conflict in accordance with the articles on previous notable escalations: 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and 2015–2016 wave of violence in Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This round of escalation is notable but not commonly termed an intifada. The article also badly needs an expansion with additional sources. Lightspecs ( talk) 00:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete for now, or move the article per Lightspecs' reply. Totalstgamer ( talk) 00:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to 2022–present wave of violence in Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Although there is some talk about a third intifada in some RS, it's all along the lines of 'a third intifada might be near'. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to 2022–2023 wave of violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in accordance with 2015–2016 wave of violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, per Lightspecs. Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 10:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment - I'm not quite sure why some users here want to move the article. Violence has been taking place in that region for decades, and these random attacks and gunfights are not out of the ordinary. There has been continuous violence. There is no "wave". We could name this article 2022–present wave of violence in Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but what about the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis? That took place just a few months before this. It's quite obvious that there's no wave of violence. Before making the claim that this is out of the ordinary and that it's a "wave" (which is synthesis if unsourced), please prove all this. I'd like to see that 1-year period of 100% peace. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 10:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
There's an article about it in Hebrew Wikipedia. Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 10:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Sir, does this Hebrew article provide more details than the English one? It is very hard to judge otherwise whether this incident is notable on its own.

From what I am reading in the article, it is a somewhat regular pattern of violence in the region, which does not warrant a separate mention. We can't describe every instance that took place over the course of its history. And the article for "2022-present" wave doesn't exist, which would be equal to creating an article anew if this piece were to be moved there. My impression:
Delete as per @ Nythar -- MitYehor ( talk) 16:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete The Hebrew WP is about an Israeli military operation called Breakwater or Breaking the Wave, the Jerusalem Post reports arrests of Palestinians (every day) as being part of it (along with anything else that the IDF do). The flip side would be Palestinian violence, Lions Den, Jenin Brigades, attacks on the IDF/Israelis etcetera. This is jumping the gun, there is no Intifada yet, when there is, we will know about it, all there is atm is steadily increasing violence over recent times dating back to more or less (not exactly) the same time as the Wave Breaking business began and getting somewhat worse since the Israeli elections. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment Clearly the article title is poor. But it seems clear that that this running sore is entering a new and even uglier phase, with (for example) some blowhard in Bibi's cabinet calling for the erasure of a Palestinian village, and, remarkably, criticism of israili action from the US government. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to 2022–2023 wave of violence in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I've done a little literature overview, and found only one article, published two days ago which speaks generally on recent events. IMO it is a good summary (a very general one). There is a problem that there is only one such article, and the rest of the sources refer to specific events. Just like us, even the article itself fails to come up with a short description, let alone title for the events, calling it an "intensification of violence", "period of violence", "cycle of violence". The article states:

While the starting point is debatable, it began to escalate in March 2022. In a period of days, Israel was rocked by a series of deadly Palestinian attacks and the Israeli military launched an open-ended operation in the West Bank in response, resulting in near nightly raids into the occupied territories.

This could be supported, by another, quite outdated, Guardian article, which stated over 30 days ago:

Attempting to mark the beginning of a flare-up in a crisis that stretches back over generations is a near-impossible task. Still, current tensions have risen since last spring, when the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) launched Operation Breakwater – one of its most extensive campaigns outside wartime – after a surge in Palestinian knife and gun attacks.

Another article by NPR follows the same path:

A series of fatal attacks by Palestinians on Israelis last year prompted a sweeping Israeli military campaign dubbed Operation Breakwater, beginning March 31. Since then, nearly every day, Israel has conducted raids in the Israeli-occupied West Bank to arrest suspected militants and round up weapons. Nearly every week, Palestinians have been killed.

It would be a good idea to use that outline to plant further information. This is the only way I see such an article can really follow the basic policies of WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH AND WP:VERIFY.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 13:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment, as the article was poorly sourced and based on WP:SYNTH, I took the liberty to remove all unsourced material and re-write the lead section based on the three sources above.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 14:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 08:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. There have been some indications to this effect (mentioned above) but there is no wide agreement that a third intifada or a particularly increased level of hostilities is ongoing. There have been some incidents and these have been covered elsewhere. There is also an open-ended IDF operation that theoretically could receive its own article, however, this article is not particularly focused on it, so rename is not a good recommendation. As the title and the content are confusing delete is the best way forward. gidonb ( talk) 03:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

For the record: the concern with a simple move is WP:POV, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. As an encyclopedia we follow the media/academic consensus and do not lead it based on a few sources, relevant or not. gidonb ( talk) 12:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to 2022–2023 wave of violence in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The rapid developments in the Palestinian territories suggest beyond any doubt that it is a stage of closely related events and not exceptional events here and there. The large number of victims is also strong evidence of this, and the emergence of a new group such as the Lions' Den.-- Sakiv ( talk) 04:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. per comments by Nythar and Gidonb. I see no content here that is properly sourced, just SYNTH and OR so I don't agree with just moving the problem to another name. If there is am 2022–2023 wave of violence in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, someone should write it without the baggage of this article. // Timothy :: talk 14:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Communist Party of Canada. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Cecil-Ross Society

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

No refs on the page for many years, no way to verify the information that is on the page that I can find.

I can believe the organisation existed, I can see that it was involved in publishing books etc. I don't see anything which meets the WP:GNG JMWt ( talk) 07:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. JMWt ( talk) 07:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect: to Communist Party of Canada, where the organization is mentioned (though that article is very poorly sourced as well). A source found some minor mentions (such as [98]), but nothing that appears to provide WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - Not seeing any notability here. KatoKungLee ( talk) 15:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Communist Party of Canada per Curbon7, there are passing mentions to the Society and records of its oral history project on prominent Canadaian communists are held in the national archives. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 20:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Spider-Man and Batman: Disordered Minds

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

ALLPLOT, no SIGCOV or any real showing of notability. Gets mentioned here and there on a blog, but no RS. Also recommend deletion for the sequel, but let's discuss this first. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 06:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 06:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete No indication of notability. QuicoleJR ( talk) 17:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. Couldn't find SIGCOV beyond the one CBR article. This topic would be better covered in a list of Marvel/DC crossovers. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 00:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Jayson Vemoa

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

A vanity page created by himself. I removed a ton of uncited fluff and resume entries and it doesn't meet WP:NKICK. Nswix ( talk) 05:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Nswix ( talk) 05:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Per Nswix, Non-notable, vanity page MNewnham ( talk) 03:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - The article had been here for years without issue and is only being challenged due to current rules, which were poorly thought out and likely will end up being temporary. Removing it adds nothing to the website to make it better. KatoKungLee ( talk) 17:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
These rules are gonna stick around longer than this article at least. Delete - vanity pape, fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi ( talk) 20:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, sources are utter garbage: Getty Image captions, literal forum posts ( [99]), straight videos, trivial mentions, and pure database stats. These are disallowed per longstanding WP policies, which all participants at AfD must be familiar with. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - I agree that this is purely a vanity article on someone who is miles away from WP:SPORTBASIC. I agree with Joelle above, the sources are dreadful. This would have failed even before WP:NSPORTS2022 so the point about recent guideline changes is moot. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 11:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Kylee Bertrand

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV, this source helps [100] but one RS is not enough. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Canada, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep There are a good number of sources. There are decent sources like this, which are supported with other sources that are more routine in nature, but such sources are allowed to support and add. While I agree that there are way too many permastubs on wikipedia, I would say when there is a large quantity of sourcing regarding a player to write a decent article covering many different events, it adds up to being acceptable enough for an article. RedPatch ( talk) 22:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Not enough in-depth coverage. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep At a quick glance there does appear to be a sufficient number of sources (beyond the source in the nomination) in the article that discuss the accomplishments of the Dominica women's national football team player. -- Enos733 ( talk) 06:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - Per RedPatch and Enos733. Young player with ongoing career abroad and international capped career. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 19:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep I'd say the existing sources support notability, along with those mentioned in this discussion. Historyday01 ( talk) 04:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The only source presented here or is in the article is this and it alone is not enough for the subject to pass GNG. I found no SIGCOV during a Google search and none on Newspapers.com. Alvaldi ( talk) 19:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. The one source mentioned above is essentially a press release (schools/proud parents send these out to local newspapers all the time) in local media, it's highly unlikely any of it is independent analysis by the author. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:TOOSOON as there simply isn't any significant coverage available to show WP:GNG could be met. Jogurney ( talk) 15:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: While there does appear to be some coverage by WP:RS demonstrating notability, the depth of that coverage might be interpreted in the context of WP:TOOSOON. Shawn Teller ( talk) 21:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. Like many editors here I agree there's insufficient coverage here. Plenty of quantity. Nothing of quality. Everything applied is routine sports news as correctly assessed by User:JoelleJay. This is a BLP. We need direct detailing of the person, not merely the jersey number. BusterD ( talk) 09:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Eso Dike

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

Fails WP:GNG. ABHammad ( talk) 04:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nigeria. AllyD ( talk) 07:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete does not meet WP:GNG Justwatchmee ( talk) 22:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep I’ve been going through the article to-and-fro wondering why it was nominated. The structure of the article might not be so good but it does not worth to be deleted. The entity meets the general notability guidelines and the SNG for actors. Have starred as a lead actor in high grossing movies and also have significant coverage in the Nigerian media; these sources are available in the article for verification. I would have formatted the article but I'm desisting to avoid mistakes (it's 1:50 AM here in Nigeria) but appreciate if I could be pinged as a reminder. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 00:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep as per Reading Beans. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: Per NACTOR Princess of Ara 19:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep as per Reading Beans MNewnham ( talk) 03:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Chicago Tigers players. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Alfred Eissler

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

non-notable NFL player who played in 2 games in 1920. Therapyisgood ( talk) 03:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete This is the best source I found and it is just a passing mention. Clearly fails GNG. Carpimaps ( talk) 03:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: here's Eissler's obit from The Cincinnati Enquirer: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/120279518/obituary-for-alfred-f-eissler/. Jweiss11 ( talk) 04:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of Chicago Tigers players as an ATD. Not enough coverage for standalone notability as it stands now. Please ping me if more coverage is found. Frank Anchor 13:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Frank Anchor. My searches failed to turn up SIGCOV. The obit referenced by Jweiss has more depth than anything I found, and that's not enough IMO (it makes only passing reference to playing pro football). See also WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."). For anyone interested in doing further searches, this book indicates he was known as "Al Eissler" and played for St. Nazaire in an AEF tournamant during WWI. Also, Pro Football Archives indicates he also played pro ball for Evanston in 1916 and Hammond in 1919. If SIGCOV is found, please ping me as I'm willing to reconsider Cbl62 ( talk) 21:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Altes Theater (Düsseldorf)

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

Lacks sourcing, either on Wikipedia or Google. De-PRODded by article creator. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Germany. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: Whether as Altes Theater or Grupello Theater, searches find very little about this building's theatrical role or its fate after the opening of the Stadttheater Düsseldorf in 1875. It does feature in Architektur in Düsseldorf, in the context of the portico which had been added by Adolph von Vagedes. AllyD ( talk) 08:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: Plenty of material at de:Altes Theater (Düsseldorf), citing three published sources (regrettably not with in-line citations, but for some reason de.wiki rarely does those). Furius ( talk) 09:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep A notable architectural piece in the centre of a major German city, a notable theatre for 125 years until replaced by Stadttheater Düsseldorf. I'm sure this can be sourced and improved, at worst merge into history of the Stadttheater.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. An important theater in Düsseldorf from some time before 1747 until around 1875. The German wiki mentions five sources. Presumably many more cover details of the theater's history. Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. well source and documented. Just because sources are not online doesnt mean they dont exist. -- hroest 20:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Hannes Röst Check the page history. This is a situation where AfD resulted in improving the article. It was entirely unsourced, and was either a microstub or on the border of being one when I first nominated it. It had been that way for years. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Great, sounds like a win for Wikipedia then! Many thanks to Dr. Blofeld who translated the article. -- hroest 14:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - Seems to be more sources available on other wikis. There's probably more out there, but there really should be WP:commonsense on how hard that is to find considering it's foreign and old. KatoKungLee ( talk) 01:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. An historic place with documented notability and sustained WP:INDEPTH coverage. More than a cursory WP:BEFORE would have shown this, but no fault to the nom. Shawn Teller ( talk) 21:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Claudio Sarlo

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

BLP of a local policeman convicted of rape. This seems to be a borderline attack page and though there is some international coverage of the case I’m not convinced this passes WP:CRIME. Mccapra ( talk) 23:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and Argentina. Mccapra ( talk) 23:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep a Buenos Aires sheriff in an internationally reported, rape scandal. Barely, but he is, notable. Antonio Yo No Estoy Sarlo Martin ( aca?) 00;04, 20 February, 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex ( talk) 04:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Fast Delete According to WP:CRIME we should not have an article about a perpetrator unless either the victim is a renowned figure or the motivation is unusual or the crime has otherwise been considered an historic event, supported by sustained coverage beyond immediate news coverage. This crime does not meet WP:CRIME's strict rules, and this article should be deleted as quickly as possible. BruceThomson ( talk) 02:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The victim is a renowned figure! And I suspect that the story will be covered for a long time since her books deal with the case as well. So, it meets WP;crime. Antonio I'm crazeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Martin ( aca?) 04;40, 23 February, 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk) 02:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete The article for Belén López Peiró covers this person and his crime. This crime is not notable or unusual, and there is nothing special about the perpetrator. Lamona ( talk) 16:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 01:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete The victim should be the focus, not their perpetrator here, and they should not have the 'honor' of having their own article. Nate • ( chatter) 02:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
comment having an article about such a horrible crime permanently associated to your name isnt really an honor. We should follow WP:CRIME and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- hroest
Delete - Doesn't seem to be particularly notable. KatoKungLee ( talk) 17:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Peter Kelly (footballer)

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

Peter Kelly (footballer)

This association football stub does not satisfy general notability because it says nothing about third-party coverage. It likewise does not satisfy sports notability because the association football guideline has been deleted. The only source appears to be a database entry in book form. The Heymann criterion should be finding another source and expanding the article within seven days. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Northern Ireland. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete not enough SIGCOV to pass GNG or the former NFOOTY. Carson Wentz ( talk) 02:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. Available coverage doesn’t equate to WP:SIGCOV that would demonstrate notability. Overall, the article subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. Shawn Teller ( talk) 21:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Glenn Johnson (footballer, born 1972)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 01:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 01:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 01:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 01:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Panagiotis Lachanas

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. Searching the subject doesn’t turn up any WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV that would justify inclusion under WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Shawn Teller ( talk) 00:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook