Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 26 December 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Norodom Ekcharin

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

Unclear if subject actually exists given lack of reliable/non-Wordpress sources. Information about existence, imposter, and other details cannot be independently confirmed (i.e. the "official" biography of father Norodom Yuvaneath does not mention subject in list of children). Possible COI with major contributor KentNewland who has made claims such as the former Queen informing her grandchildren about the "imposter" via text message on editor GenQuest's talk page. Would recommend deletion or draftifying to go through the AfC process. Kazamzam ( talk) 23:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Cambodia. Kazamzam ( talk) 23:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Well, he existed, at least according to this Phnom Penh post [1], but we're going to need a lot more sourcing before we can keep this. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Draftify until the AfC is complete seems like an acceptable option. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify: I suspect the subject, who died as a child, is legit. I did a lot of work on this article trying to salvage what I could, however, the lack of RS on the toddler is concerning. But, he is royalty, so there's that. I suspect there are probably more foreign sources available, so I do not support outright deletion, and a merge to the father could well be in order. if sources are found. GenQuest "scribble" 03:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Phnom Penh post source is not correct and it was an old news. It was back in the day when Ekcharin impersonator was able to con his way to upper chain of the Norodom royal family. This Ekcharin impersonator made up story to credit his existence and unfortunately they were already widespread among one of Julio A. Jeldres' books and onto many other medias. The family of Norodom Yuvaneath did accept him as the biological son at that time and they were also tricked to believe with the false DNA report created by Ekcharin impersonator. The final DNS test that was taken place (conducted by Norodom Yuvaneath's oldest son) in Aug of 2022 indicates that he is not the survival and biological son. The family had already disconnected their associations with this person. I understand that Wiki requires RS to credit any of these new findings but unfortunately there aren't any available at this moment. EFE.com is working on an updated story on this matter and I have no idea when they are going to publish it. I hope this Wiki article will be given some more time and chances to sort things out otherwise I understand that deletion is necessary if RS is not presenting any sooner (or worst: reverting back to the original Ekcharin impersonator biography). This Ekcharin impersonator is still alive indeed but his official name that appears in his Swedish passport is Charin Norodom. Charin is a common name among Cambodians. But he definitely is not "the Ekcharin", the biological son, of Tea Kim Yin for sure. For argument sake and let say the real Ekcharin is still alive, then the DNA will have to prove it via Ancestry or MyHeritage.com or other similar sites if the potential child and the mother both had submitted their DNA samples. Otherwise, anyone can claim to be Ekcharin Norodom and especially when the child is already dead. The payoff is just too good to pass if a person has a chance to become a part of a royal family. KentNewland ( talk) 01:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
As you noted, none of the claims you have made above or in the article have reliable sources. Given the amount of information on the page, I think the best option is to draftify. I do not think it is appropriate to keep unverified statements on WP about DNA tests having been conducted as that's quite a big claim to make about someone's personal and familial life with nothing to go on, royalty or otherwise. Kazamzam ( talk) 04:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Francisco de la O

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

Unsourced article of a lesser known Mexican actor. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Only source provided is a random magazine article, which talks about a relationship that isn't even mentioned in the article anyway. CycloneYoris talk! 23:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Clint Everts

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

not notable Fbdave ( talk) 23:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and United States of America. AllyD ( talk) 07:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Found couple of sources that cover him in detail ( part 1/ part 2) and [2]. Alvaldi ( talk) 10:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    The first of those is almost wholly quotes/"Everts (or Barnett) said", though -- what's left is maybe four independent secondary sentences, with at least one of those being unencyclopedic trivia (description of his car). JoelleJay ( talk) 15:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    As nice as his car was, you are right regarding that source, on a second look it doesn't have a whole lot that goes towards GNG. There are other sources from the previous AfD that I actually hadn't noticed, these are probably the best of them [3] [4] [5] (the one in Baseball America is undoubtedly the best). The rest that was there are just minor routine stories or brief mentions [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] plus one dead link [13] Alvaldi ( talk) 16:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Washington Nationals first-round draft picks where he is mentioned. The player himself is not notable and the sourcing routine. Spanneraol ( talk) 14:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    • and the sourcing routine – ROUTINE is part of the notability guideline for events. A person is not an event, so that policy does not apply here. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems to pass GNG, see the two sources listed by Alvaldi, plus [14] [15] [16] [17] (although it only gives an abstract, the title sounds like it would be sigcov, same with [18]) and [19] - there's also some other sources that were listed by Muboshgu ( talk · contribs) at the previous afd that I can't access. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per GNG. Several sources above plus some material about him in Moneyball. Rlendog ( talk) 01:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The above sources support that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:53, 3 January 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! 22:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Pablo Hell

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

Article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The sources are mostly PR pieces, this is one. Definitely not notable at this point. Jamiebuba ( talk) 22:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I updated the page with more sources and I did go back and double-check, it appears he could qualify for notability as he has been frequently mentioned in just one year for a notable sub-genre of music, trap hip-hop. Some of the articles are press release, but many do bring up past feats and discussion as to why he is a notable subject. LLVKAS ( talk) 00:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Deletion contested on article talk page so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment That particular music genre is not in my wheelhouse, so I can't comment how RS the new sources are. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Indian School Al-Seeb

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of coverage. Only a primary source supplied. LibStar ( talk) 22:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - no non-primary sources found on the internet. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 00:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Chris Bell (director)

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria for WP:FILMMAKER and for WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethweimaster ( talk • contribs)

  • Weak Keep There are some interviews from LA Times and Pacific Stabdard involving the subject, and some of his works are notable enough to have their own articles. But the Wikipedia article itself is written like a promotion. If the article did not get rewritten into a more unbiased manner, and if more sources weren't given by next week, then it's recommended to be deleted. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 17:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning towards Delete I basically agree with Tutwakhamoe. While the films seem to be notable for a page, I dont think he has enough of a body of work for his own page. You could argue either way but, the way the page is written currently and cited is terrible. Using IMDB and Linkedin to source info is not acceptable at all. I doubt anyone not affiliated with him will take enough interest to save this page. If someone does some work and can find articles, i would consider keeping it but, as it stands it could almost be nominated for a speedy deletion. ScienceAdvisor ( talk) 21:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood ( talk) 21:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, already lacks enough sources for WP:BLP and I could find few sources of value online. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep there's an article in the LA Times [20] and this about his Prescription Thugs film at Tribeca in the Hollywood Reporter [21]. Could perhaps merge to one of his films, Prescription Thugs seems to have some coverage, but no article here on wiki. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep—Though it appears that Bell is currently only notable via his directorial activity on an acclaimed documentary, I'm thinking that there might be sufficient content related to his motivations around co-writing and directing this documentary to justify keeping the article. I've made some additions to the article, which can be seen via this diff link (this is the full diff between nomination and my last contribution). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep Two of Bell's films have been reviewed by The New York Times ( 1, 2), The Los Angeles Times ( 3, 4), and Variety ( 5, 6), among other publications. Mooonswimmer 23:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep None of the individual sources are particularly strong, but I think that the sum total of them just scrapes by to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:50, 3 January 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! 22:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

El Mundo que inventamos

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no verifiable reviews found in a BEFORE. Perma-stub since 2007 DonaldD23 talk to me 23:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 17:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment the Spanish wikipedia article quotes two newspaper reviews and another review translated here but unfortunately it doesn't give any links for them, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I didn't find any WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY, reliable sources. Spanish is my first language, so it's possible I don't know where to look, but until someone can show me, I think we should delete. Jacona ( talk) 12:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If La Nación or Clarín have online archives, we might be able to find the reviews listed in the article on Spanish Wiki. Otherwise, not much substantial coverage. I could only find passing mentions in a few books. Redirect to the director's page ( Fernando Siro) if the reviews in the aforementioned publications are not recovered. Mooonswimmer 00:12, 3 January 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 22:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Taylor St. Claire

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

A porn film actress and porn director lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is not passed. Of the sources in the article IMDb is not a reliable source, the porn industry sources are not significant content except one which is an interview and the New York Times article does not mention her at all. A seach on Google found nothing better. I prodded this but it was deprodded because AVN is considered a reliable source but in that case there is still only one reliable source with significant content in the form of an interview. Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to point to another Eric Choi. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Eric Choi

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

BLP of the inventor of the Electrolytic Self-Cleaning Water Pipe, who was once on tv. Nothing to indicate notability in Wikipedia terms. Mccapra ( talk) 19:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Mccapra ( talk) 19:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to We Came as Romans, a musical ensemble in which another Eric Choi performed. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete His only claims to fame are being on a hidden camera show and a patent. Unfortunately, the patent search fails and I can't find any trace of it. Lamona ( talk) 19:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Reply - @ Mccapra:, @ Onel5969:, @ Lamona:, why exactly are we opposed to redirecting with history in tact? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
      I do not have an objection to a redirect - except that it keeps getting recreated. If redirected, it should be protected from re-creation. Onel5969 TT me 16:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Reply - I also, have zero objection to salting the link. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Reply there’s also Eric Choi (disambiguation) which will be redundant after this is deleted and hopefully salted. The disambiguation page can be repurposed as a redirect once this is gone. Mccapra ( talk) 16:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • We wouldn’t redirect it as a disambiguation page. If this page is deleted, we could turn the disambiguation into Eric Choi (We Came As Romans) or something and redirect that as a plausible search term. It’s not clear to me why we’d particularly want to keep the edit history of this page, but I’m not really bothered if it makes more sense to redirect this instead. Mccapra ( talk) 17:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Reply - @ Mccapra:, I see no reason at all to even create "Eric Choi (We Came As Romans)". We do not even need "Eric Choi (disambiguation)". The redirect for "Eric Choi" to We Came as Romans was probably just fine the way that it was, and there is no need at all to delete the page history. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:32, 2 January 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) 18:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Abbas Sajwani

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

Spam. The subject is only mentioned in the first line of the article, and then the article goes to talk about some company (notable or not) owned by the father of the subject. Ymblanter ( talk) 17:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

The subject is mentioned at the beginning and then the article goes to talk about a company he founded and still owns. It's not owned by his father. -- Abdullah Arfa ( talk) 18:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This is a weird one. I agree, the article is not about the person; the article is about his business. It should, if it is kept, be moved to the name of the business, and it should be assessed as a business, not as a person. My feeling is that it is blatantly promotional, and the articles used as references look like the sort of commissioned articles or regurgitated press-releases that are not independent of the subject, and therefore I would have sympathy with deletion. But I lack expertise on businesses. Elemimele ( talk) 18:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete The person is only ever mentioned in press-releases. Nothing notable found. Agreed the article is odd. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Fay

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

Apparently Mr. Fay, or someone close to him, wrote the initial versions of the article under the username User:BearCreekObservatory but never declared a conflict of interest, despite Bear Creek Observatory's homepage saying that it was "designed and built by Jonathan Fay." The article was later turned into a redirect but the article has been revived, and I can find no significant coverage of this person. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 17:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose – Notable computer scientist and astronomer. I added links to publications and third party references. Ghettoblaster ( talk) 12:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Checked all 18 references and none except for the interview have provided significant coverage on Fay as a person. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 18:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Appears to be a software engineer with a great job and lots of ideas but clearly not notable, per the sources. There is no wide coverage to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and does not pass WP:BASIC. AuthorAuthor ( talk) 20:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • In the meantime, I added additional information I found on the web to show notability. Also, I added a number of additional independent 3rd party references. Ghettoblaster ( talk) 21:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    I just checked the new sources you have added: none of these provide significant coverage as they are all passing mentions of Jonathan Fay. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 06:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm only finding mentions - articles about the software list him and Curtis Wong as the developers, but there's nothing else about him. If there is any other information it might make sense to add it to the article for the software since I don't see enough to support a separate article. Lamona ( talk) 22:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Failed to find more sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OKamigo ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:29, 3 January 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 Amateur radio in India. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Mangalore Amateur Radio Club

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

It exists, but couldn't find any in-depth coverage of this organization. The most in-depth source is a press release about the death of the founder. And even that doesn't truly go into depth about the organization. Other than that, there are simply mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Onel5969 TT me 14:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Onel5969, we have added more notability source form book, kindly review the articles ChiK ( talk) 17:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: Most of the sources just look to be brief mentions of lists of such clubs, and no in dept coverage. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Amateur radio in India per WP:ATD. That page currently doesn't have a "Clubs" section, but one could be created, and a shortened version of this content could go there. The multiple mentions in The Times of India are impressive, but not in-depth enough for a standalone Wikipedia entry. The content and sources are good though, and could be incorporated into a larger article. Cielquiparle ( talk) 13:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

John Bosnitch

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

This person is clearly mentioned a fair few times in the story of Bobby Fischer, but I can't seem to find WP:SIGCOV for him, and the existing references in the article are mostly bad. Can't say I see how this meets WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ANYBIO. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 16:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

MedBelle.com

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

Notability. Given sources are either self-published or run of the mill coverage. Except the Irish Times one, which merely namechecks them ar the originator or the data which the story is about. I dont think thats enough. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Chuck Pankow

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

This BLP is completely unsourced and I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that would confer notability. A lot of content has been removed over years for BLP verifiability concerns; the article has been tagged for notability for nearly three years, is not eligible for BLPPROD (already performed), and from the infobox and few extant sources, is above the bar for A7 (which I declined). All I see are databases and a few mentions connecting the subject to his partner, but databases alone are insufficient and notability is not inherited. Complex/ Rational 16:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Kakkipada

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

This is an upcoming film with no significant claim to notability. Shoerack ( talk) 15:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Khizri Zapirov

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

I declined a speedy deletion nomination for this article (not a straightforward A7/G11). However, I agree that many of the sources may not be reliable (indicated in the speedy tag), and I'm not finding additional significant coverage in reliable sources in a WP:BEFORE search. The most I see is pranks covered by various media outlets, millions of subscribers, and legal issues, though given the quality of sources (e.g., The Sun) and lack of in-depth coverage, I have doubts that this is sufficent. From what I see, the general notability guideline and/or the subject notability guideline for entertainers are not clearly satisfied, though I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if sufficient sourcing exists – especially in Russian-language sources. Complex/ Rational 15:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I am leaning toward weak delete. The subject is mostly appears as a suspect of a crime in Russian language sources, (e.g. [23]), but the coverage seems to be insufficient to pass WP:GNG and does not provide enough details for a fair BLP page. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No notability-establishing sources have been found. Sandstein 18:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Beata Syta

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

I found nothing which could help in substantiating this article. Hence fails WP:GNG. zoglophie 13:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, Olympics, and Poland. zoglophie 13:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I beleive that any athlete who competed at an Olypic Games is considered notable. The article has sources- and had them when nominated for deletion- and I think the nominator should have a look at WP:BEFORE. I found [24] very quickly: looks pretty solid to me. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
@ TheLongTone: That is just a database. Every athlete who has participated in Olympics has it. Olympians are also being redirected/deleted per new guidelines. Where are the sources contributing to WP:SIGCOV being met? zoglophie 15:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Certainly, but I would imagine that an an olympian there would have been significant print coverage in her country of origin. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Your belief is not consistent with community consensus. WP:NOLY was reduced from participants to medal winners some time ago) as experience has shown that Olympic participation is not in itself sufficient as an indicator of the existence of significant coverage (or notability). The result of successive discussions and RFCs in recent years has been substantial changes to notability guidelines: principally WP:NSPORT, including WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTCRIT. Essentially, significant coverage must be demonstrated, not imagined. wjemather please leave a message... 16:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I respect your imaginations, but to keep this article we would need some sources. Thankyou. zoglophie 15:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete GNG still applies. We have nothing showing she's been mentioned in media; I think she might run a restaurant in Poland now, but it's not notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing but badminton databases and Wikipedia mirrors, unfortunately. Kingsif ( talk) 03:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply
comment I'm most surprised that wiki guidelines do not consider Olympians to be per se notable, given that wikipedia seem to consider anybody who has ever even looked at a football to be notable. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Mere participation is no longer a criterion of any sports notability guidelines. wjemather please leave a message... 16:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I do believe tht all article in Wikipedia should be support with sources. However, we shouldn't ignore existing offline sources either. Ex: in this article, said tht Beata Syta mentioned in "Głuszek, Leksykon 1999" book. Besides competing in Olympic Games and won some national championships title, she also 2nd in 1991 Czechoslovakian International, 3rd in 1990 and 1991 Bulgarian International, 1990 Hungarian International, 1992 Swiss Open, and 1994 Victor Cup. Based on these achievements, we can expand the article. Thanks Stvbastian ( talk) 02:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 14:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - despite ample time to find sources, no suitable ones have been presented. WP:SPORTBASIC requires that [sports] biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. The last part is extremely important. Olympics.com and Olympedia and other such sources therefore do not confer notability. As she did not win a medal in the Olympics, she doesn't meet WP:NOLY. We are therefore left only with WP:GNG, which SPORTBASIC is based on. ProQuest gives us nothing useful. Likewise with Google Books. Lastly, this Polish source search doesn't really help us. I did find a Wordpress site called Okiem Jadwigi but it's just a personal blog and the coverage is weak anyway, amounting to nothing more than one team listing and a few image captions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:04, 2 January 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. Sandstein 18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The Yellow Festival

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE. All awards appear to be minor DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Dave Routledge

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

fails WP:GNG, even in darts he is not a notable figure, he accomplished nothing of note All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 13:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Really tried hard to find sources for this person but found no significant sources. I went to the third page of Google, multiple screens of DDG, and internet archive but found nothing. Routledge hasn't won awards so he is not notable. Carpimaps ( talk) 14:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Lalan Chaudhary (politician)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, currently zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Lalan Chaudhary is CPIM Bihar State secretary. So it is notable to write an article about him. Many biographies (I cannot remember the names, but I have seen) in Wikipedia are smaller in length than it and have very less citations. This biography about Lalan Chaudhary has 4 citations. XYZ 250706 ( talk) 15:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As per as nom. State Secretary of any party doesn't passes WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 19:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As stated above, state secretary is not a position that awards WP:NPOL#1. A search in both Hindi and English did not return WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It might be worth mentioning here that Bihar has a population of 104+ million, so being a state-level leader of a party there isn't a small affair. In terms of coverage, note that transliterations vary in English. I found more material relating to his role as leader in 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest. -- Soman ( talk) 20:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. Ordinarily I would agree with Soman, but the party in question doesn't have a substantial presence in the state of Bihar; as best as I can tell it received less than 1% of the statewide vote in the last election [25], less even that the two other factions of the Communist Party of India. My !vote is "weak" because I suspect there may be coverage in the non-English media, but what has been provided so far isn't enough for GNG in my view. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:58, 3 January 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) 17:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Pamela Allier

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

No reason to be on Wikipedia. Doenst comply with ANYBIO requirements; spam. No RS Edit.pdf ( talk) 13:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment I did find these sources: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] However, I am not sure how independent and reliable they are. Carpimaps ( talk) 14:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Internet. North America 1000 16:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Looking at the sources on the article, from Carpimaps, and what I can find online, articles for showing Instagram posts of her outfits or sources commenting on what she wears or primary sources (like interviews) don't demonstrate notability per WP:NBASIC or WP:CREATIVE in the slightest. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 19:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only sources list her as "one to follow" or comment on the outfits she's worn. Nothing of substance for GNG that we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:01, 3 January 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) 17:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Andreas Dracopoulos

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

Promo piece on a non-notable person, with likely COI issues. Earlier declined at AfC, then copypasted into the main space. After that was redraftified, this third attempt was published against advice, so let's see what the good folks at AfD make of it. The sources cited are all primary, mostly close to the subject, and not one of them contributes towards notability; a BEFORE search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

And the speedy deletion request was declined. So continue to discuss. Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Consensus is still divided between "keep" and "merge" after the relist. A discussion about merging can continue in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2023) 11:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Rahul Ligma

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

Received a short burst/spike of news reports last month and not much more. Suggest delete or merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. –– FormalDude (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This poor guy can't catch a break: first he's fired from Twitter, then laid off from FTX, and now he's having his Wikipedia page deleted! How could we delete what The India Times calls "one of the greatest pranks on the internet"? As the Ligma meme and the FTX firing fall outside the lines of the Twitter acquisition, merging there would lose important before-and-after context. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE I think Keep is better than merging there (or to Media prank or Culture jamming) as we would run up against weight and coatrack issues and have to trim quite a bit. A standalone page is the best way to WP:PRESERVE everything. As page creator. BBQboffin ( talk) 19:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The character has appeared twice now in both FTX and Twitter, so it's not one of these "one event" type scenarios that requires lots of bars to be surpassed. Nor is it a BLP1E, considering it's a fictional person. Therefore all I think we need here is significant coverage, which exists. CT55555( talk) 20:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    • But, a lack of any WP:LASTING coverage suggests that topic is not notable. –– FormalDude (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
      WP:LASTING is something we should consider for event articles. If this was an event article, I would say it was too early to know if this was lasting. As it is not an event article, I will instead just point to WP:GNG as what I consider to be the appropriate guidance. CT55555( talk) 03:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
      You just said it wasn't a "one event" type scenario because there were two events (at Twitter and FTX). Now you're saying neither was an event? I should mention the requirement of having WP:SUSTAINED coverage also applies to GNG. –– FormalDude (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
      The article is not about an event. It is about topic whose notability stems from multiple events. Therefore the common reasons used to justify deleting and article because it is connected to just one event cannot be used.
      I hope I'm being clear. If I'm not, then just take away this main point: I think this passes WP:GNG. It's OK for us to disagree, but I don't want to stray into bludgeoning here, so hopefully this is my last comment. CT55555( talk) 03:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
      Sure, I just don't understand how you think a couple news reports from last month and nothing else is a sign of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. –– FormalDude (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk A one time reaction character is not notable because of WP:NTEMP. A guy doing a Ligma joke is not something that fits here
Ask me about air Cryogenic air ( talk) 22:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This article is perfectly consistent with what Wikipedia covers, in my opinion. Dingolover6969 ( talk) 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Articles do not lose their notability, and I agree WP:LASTING was written with events in mind and not people. I would not be opposed to a merge though, given that I think it could be better suited in another article Rlink2 ( talk) 22:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Rlink2 This is more about an event than a person. Fictional person (performance, meme) is an event, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Even as a hoax, the spirit of WP:BLP1E applies. We cover individuals when they have attracted more than 15 minutes of fame. If they only receive a burst of news coverage around one event, we mention it as part of a broader topic, if at all. I am fine with a merge if someone can make it fit. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Did you catch that there was two events? One about Twitter and one about the crypto company? CT55555( talk) 19:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Three events if you count the fictional re-hiring, which was being reported on as actual news on November 16-17 by several outlets almost three weeks after the initial October 28 prank, and then there's the November 23 Daily Beast story on it. That's WP:SUSTAINED enough, isn't it? Also the presidential run [33] but that might be too WP:PROMO to put in the article although it's quite funny and the linked Twitter accounts are those of the actors themselves. BBQboffin ( talk) 19:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    It seems to me to be part of the same event, not sustained. Just covering a story that developed over few weeks. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a few more days/week to break the logjam between those advocating Keep and those seeking a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This article's subject is a satirical fictionalized persona, much like Stephen Colbert (character). WP:DEL-REASON#8 is specific that we should delete if the article subject fails the relevant notability guideline; rather stretching the scope of WP:NEVENT (the notability guideline relevant to events) or WP:NBIO (the notability guideline relevant to real people) in judging this article's notability, it's more appropriate to judge this article's subject in light of the WP:GNG. And, through that lens, the fictionalized persona clearly passes the relevant notability criteria, having been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS does not seem an impediment here either; this article is not original reporting, written in news style, celebrity gossip, nor a violation of WP:NOTWHOSWHO.
    The ultimate question here is whether it's wiser to merge our coverage of this persona into another article on the basis that the persona is better covered in that article. And, while I'd be tempted to do that if this persona only were covered in the context of the Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk or some greater Twitter-related shebang, I don't see how that would be an improvement to our encyclopedia when the character is also covered in the context of the FTX collapse. In my view, it would be better to have coverage of this persona in a standalone article, rather than having our coverage be merely scattered about in multiple articles that the current standalone one would have to be merged into. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 08:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    • That's an extremely narrow construing of WP:NOTNEWS. Topics like this one that have only received routine, short-lived news coverage are often considered a violation of that policy.
Furthermore, even if we don't apply anything besides GNG, WP:SUSTAINED is a requirement of GNG. Can you explain if you think this topic has sustained coverage and why? –– FormalDude (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
It's surely too early to know if coverage will be sustained, but I don't consider that a good reason to delete, more a reason to wait and see. Can you imagine how weird the encyclopedia would be if everything that had not yet got sustained coverage was deleted? CT55555( talk) 18:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
How is one month not enough? Two weeks of news followed by two weeks of silence is evidence that the coverage is not sustained. If it was, there would be new coverage coming out by now. –– FormalDude (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't agree with your analysis. I consider it normal that something will have gaps in coverage for a few weeks. This reminds me of the conversation that occurred at similarly satirical page Jorts when so many were convinced coverage would fade. CT55555( talk) 18:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
And what is the harm in merging the content until there is sufficient evidence of lasting coverage? –– FormalDude (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I doubt any path forward would cause harm, maybe deleting would if we really stretched the meaning of harm. Harm avoidance isn't the basis of my argument. Following WP:GNG is my theme here. We're not agreeing and repeating ourselves further seems unlikely to bring us to consensus. I will try to make this my last comment and I hope we can leave this with an agree-to-disagree type situation please. CT55555( talk) 23:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
No, it's an utterly reasonable reading of WP:NOTNEWS. You're free to disagree, of course, but I see no reason that the significant coverage of this character in the context of multiple events is somehow reduced to a routine dog-bites-man-level story. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Red-tailed hawk and BBQboffin. Kablammo ( talk) 21:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more round. Consensus seems to be roughly divided between "keep" and "merge".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge I simply don't think there is enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage here. The FTX stuff was less than a month after the initial Twitter incident. If they keep receiving coverage for future incidents then maybe it will deserve an article, but I don't think the current coverage justifies more than a few sentences at most. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from 4 days ago https://freebeacon.com/culture/2022-man-of-the-year-rahul-ligma-and-daniel-johnson/ CT55555( talk) 02:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    That's not a reliable source and they're not even reporting anything new... –– FormalDude (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is not listed as a depreciated or reliable source, we are therefore expected to use our judgement. I see no reason to discount it as a source, I'm not using it to cite something, and I'm posting this to show that coverage is sustained, which is something you challenged above. CT55555( talk) 11:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I already !voted delete above, but want to make it clear that a merge would work. I agree with Hemiauchenia, and a few weeks of fame is not sustained coverage. WP:BLP asks for a lot more, and we should wait to see if anyone is still talking about this person in a year. A merge allows us to revisit this when those sources come. Shooterwalker ( talk) 01:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Please elaborate how you think "a merge would work" as at present the Twitter acquisition makes no mention of the subject. If you "agree with Hemiauchenia" that the character justifies "a few sentences at most" that evisceration of content and sources (there are 27 currently) would be extreme. I appreciate your candor in your delete !vote as that is what "merge" really is. I realize I can make no demands on your time, but I would present as an open challenge to any editor here to please summarize in "a few sentences" the content and context of the existing article that would be an improvement on the standalone page. We're WP:NOTPAPER here, and if it takes a few paragraphs to include everything, well, electrons are cheap. BBQboffin ( talk) 04:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Merge means you move content from here to an existing article... the existing article doesn't have to have any mention of the merged topic beforehand, it just has to be a suitable destination for the content by scope. –– FormalDude (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    No, a merge is a merge, and sometimes a compromise to deletion. Take this as a reminder to WP:AGF and look for WP:CONSENSUS, instead of turning AFD into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Some topics fail WP:NOTNEWS and we don't create separate articles for each and every burst of media coverage. But sometimes that coverage might be briefly summarized as part of a WP:SUSTAINED article topic. The main Twitter acquisition article has had sustained coverage almost all year, and sources will likely analyze it for years to come. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is an important story of media bias causing generalised media failures, one of the most important topics of the decade. Tallard ( talk) 21:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. There is one article in TechCrunch dated December 24, "This year in tech felt like a simulation", which mentions Rahul Ligma in the context of "absurd events in tech" and their implications including fraud. Simply merging the content into the Twitter acquisition article and the FTX article buries the bigger picture story about the failure of the media to reliably report the news (and detracts from the serious coverage of those other topics). While I'm personally not a fan of giving undue credence to pranks, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to delete, and in this case it was more than just a single incident, with follow-up reporting required in many cases by the media to critique and/or admit failure (though I am also slightly disappointed there isn't a bit more analysis of that). Cielquiparle ( talk) 07:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk and delete. Lots of dancing around various guidelines as everyone tries to exclude ones (e.g. NBIO, NEVENT, NOTNEWS) that show it doesn't meet our notability criteria and pushing others (e.g. GNG. ?). For me, this topic is the very definition of why WP:NEVENT was written. It was a good prank, that's it. Everyone has already forgotten about it and most who recall the *event* (or prank) wouldn't even remember the names two weeks later anyway. I've !voted for a merge because at best, this might be worthy of a small mention in the overall Acquisition by Musk topic. That's not to say that I think the entire article should be merged, I'd be happy with a two sentence summary to say that two guys pranked the media after the layoffs and the media ran with the story without checking any of what they had said. HighKing ++ 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's a joke. It got a lot of attention. It's not Flying Spaghetti Monster level of attention, but it's still enough to meet the GNG and no part of NOT applies. Jclemens ( talk) 05:28, 3 January 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. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 02:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Matthew Worley


Matthew Worley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Music, Politics, and England. AllyD ( talk) 09:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: As a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, he appears to pass WP:NPROF#C3. Additionally, a cursory search revealed reviews of some of his works: [34] [35] [36] [37]. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I'd keep him; disclosure, I'm currently in the middle of a massive bust-up with the academic community about the laxness of sourcing in articles about academics, but his article is a lot better than many. More informative and better sourced. Enough to satisfy WP:NPROF, and to be useful to the reader. Elemimele ( talk) 19:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many published book reviews listed in the article. I think the standards for FRHS [38] are too lax for it to count for WP:PROF#C3. #C8 (founding a notable journal) also looks possible, though. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Confederation of Independent Football Associations. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Canton Ticino football team

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

No evidence of any notability, sources are passing mentions (literally, just being named in a list of other such novelty teams) and one primary source. No better sources found online. Fram ( talk) 08:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to CONIFA per GiantSnowman is "ok" (since redirects are "cheap"), although IRL the actual name of the organisation appears to be "Canton Ticino FA". In any case, it's not a !keep, as there isn't enough coverage per WP:GNG at this time. Cielquiparle ( talk) 13:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal

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

Fails WP:GNG and does not pass any WP:BIO criteria ChunnuBhai ( talk) 08:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete art collector with his name, I find a few references discussing cases he's litigated, but nothing about the person. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Tohono Oʼodham Indian Reservation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Sweetwater, Pima County, Arizona

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

Another searching nightmare, in this case caused by a bunch of other "Sweetwater" places further east. They aen't this place, though, and it's not evident that there's any connection between any of them. I couldn't find anything specifically about this place except what I could get from topos and aerials: they show a rough cluster of buildings that appear in the photos to be buildings of a single establishment. Eventually they all go away, leaving no trace of whatever it was. Mangoe ( talk) 06:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak keep for now I found this and some mentions on sites devoted to hiking trails. Possibly something notable there. Not going to get excited if someone takes a better look and decides it isn't notable after all. Elinruby ( talk) 08:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Followup: It is part of the Gila River Indian Community and it seems worth looking at whether any of the local history and/or border issues took place in this specific community. I'd suggest a look at Google Books or JStor, which I cannot do right now Elinruby ( talk) 08:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I hate to rain on this parade because I am in the middle of searching for sources myself, but Sweetwater Wetlands are in Tucson, about 100 miles east of the location under discussion. See the map in this book for instance. It is also marked on gmaps. Spinning Spark 09:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hmm. I did wonder about that, but it's the same county, so... But your map trumps my map because it's a book, and it shows it north of Tucson not west. So ok, you're right. But my weak keep stands based on the Gila River Indian Community article. It might still not be enough, but it:s worth a look Elinruby ( talk) 04:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. This book listing triangulation points in Arizona lists one called Sweetwater, located 1.5 miles northwest of an Indian village of the same name. Assuming that the GNIS derived coords are pointing to the triangulation point, there is indeed a small collection of buildings about 1.5 miles southeast of it. Shown here on gmaps. Spinning Spark 10:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply

*Merge with Sweetwater, Pinal County, Arizona, which would improve both articles. Prefer an article title that does not mention the county since, if it is part of the Gila River community, it would afaik technically be theoretically autonomous not part of the county -- see recent decision about same sex marriage law and declaration that the community (Gila River) only recognizes its own marriages Elinruby ( talk) 09:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Again, that is not the same place as this article, off by 100 miles or so again. Click through on the coordinates at the top of the page and you will easily see this. The place under discussion is near the Mexican border a few miles east of Organ Pipe Cactus monument. The location also ties in exactly with the source I found. You may be right though, about it not being part of the county. It lies within the Tohono Oʼodham Indian Reservation which could be a merge target. Spinning Spark 10:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply
How embarrassing. In my own defense, I am pretty sure this is one of these "places in Arizona that might be inhabited" articles that gave me nonsense when I clicked the coordinates. (I'm on a phone). Ahem. Ok... Let's say you are right about that: if it is within the boundaries of delimited indigenous land, then the same should apply to the Tohono O'odham. Sovereignty is a principle of Native American law. It would definitely be a more meaningful target than the county, and somewhat more informative than a stand-alone infobox. I'll strike the merge vote now (blush). Elinruby ( talk) 11:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply
No problem, I've made similar mistakes in the past myself, which taught me to be more careful. Just realised that my link to gmaps for the actual village was broken, but now fixed. Here it is again for reference. Spinning Spark 15:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Tohono Oʼodham Indian Reservation. I believe that Spinningspark has found this community. This AZ Dept of Health Services doc is a list of Indian communities in Arizona (there is another Sweetwater in Pinal County). This Sweetwater is one of about 80 Tohono Oʼodham villages. I don't see that there is enough info to write much of an article on most of them (beyond what is currently in this sub-stub). The reservation article has a list of 13 communities. That list should be expanded to include them all, and each of the villages redirect there, except for any for which there is sourcing to create a decent article, like Santa Rosa, Arizona which at 671 is the largest of them all. The rest should be covered in the reservation article, with whatever basic information is available, like coords, GNIS ID, and elevation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB ( talk • contribs) 06:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm happy to facilitate a Merge but there needs to be a consensus on what the target article would be. I would like to see more agreement here before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

NaijaRugged

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

Removed PROD (didn't technically meet A7 criteria), hence XfDing. Evidently non-notable website. PK650 ( talk) 05:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Touhfat Mouhtare

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

Subject has written a novel, but that alone is insufficient to meet the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 05:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep there are additional sources of her on the internet written in French, possibly enough to push the article into notable territory. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  1. https://www.lemonde.fr/livres/article/2022/10/14/le-feu-du-milieu-de-touhfat-mouhtare-toutes-les-vies-qui-se-puissent-vivre_6145872_3260.html
  2. https://aflit.arts.uwa.edu.au/mouhtare_ames.html
I made some improvements to the article so make that clearer. CT55555( talk) 15:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mediacorp. I'm going to do a rare IAR and ask that if there is any relevant content, it be Merged as an ATD. If there is none, then this article should be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Seven Princesses of Mediacorp

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

Non-notable grouping of actresses; only RS I could find grouping the actresses in this way is the referenced zaobao article. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 12:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Princesses, an AfD for the same topic under a slightly different title. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 12:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with nom, I can't find any sources that uses this term. Didn't catch on as a media term. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Singapore. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The correct Chinese term is "新传媒七公主" and not just "七公主". A search on NewspaperSG, Singapore's newspaper archive indicate 34 hits with the full name. From the preview of the search results, "七公主" is a viable term for searching but would get multiple non-related results. Based on the "catchphrase" starting since 2006 to 2011, there are about 700 to 800 results which if you remove the possible unrelated results at say 50%, it is a substantial amount of coverage. Note that searching in English would probably yield very little results as article title is translated from Chinese. Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 02:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Updated the article with sources in 2011 and 2017. Note that there are constant references of "七公主" when one of the seven actresses are mentioned but as a passing reference. Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 03:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
All of the sources are from Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao (Zaobao and Wanbao literally meaning morning and evening paper respectively). Per WP:MULTSOURCES I would argue they don’t constitute multiple independent sources that would establish notability. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 04:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Moreover, I would guess that most of these results are merely passing mentions (though it is hard to tell for sure, since the full articles are not available online). Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 04:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The news items should be available online via Newslink, accessible with a NLB account from home ( https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/main/Browse?browseBy=type&filter=10&page=2). Even if they are not online, they can be accessed via microfilm at the National Library building (level 11?) at Bugis. But prior to access and assessment, how about WP:AGF and not guess the content? – robertsky ( talk) 09:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
What a novel interpretation of WP:MULTSOURCES, but no. WP:MULTSOURCES is not about news being published by different newspapers under the same publisher. Rather, it is addressing the republication of a news article by a news organisation across multiple newspapers owned by one or many publishers.
All I see is that you are trying to argue that both papers are not independent of each other and thus can be considered as one paper on basis of being named similarly. You have not presented any evidence of that yet.
For all intents and purposes, the two newspapers, Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao, were created under one company after a merger of two newspapers, Nanyang and Sin Chew, when their HQs in Malaysia decided call it quits in Singapore for various reasons, all these before SPH was formed. The two papers retained much of their respective newsroom staff and had separate operations. The name, Lianhe, is a shortened name for their combined names, but like all name changes, the long name had lost relevance over time even though underneath it all, the morning paper could be Nanyang papers, and evening Sin Chew (or vice versa). Although the two companies will merge into a corporate sense, their editorial, publication, and related activities will be conducted seperately under their respective editorial and production teaams ( Details of Nanyang, Sin Chew merger (Business Times, 21 April 1982)).
In a fashion, Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao were both independent papers sharing the same financial operations, that's before being merged into a single paper after the SPH CLG was established in 2021. Unless there are indications/evidence that the newsroom operations were being combined over time under the old SPH, and any cross publications of news items were as a result of being a combined newsroom, rather than syndication, we should consider them as separate independent sources.
The question on the independence of the two papers should be examined and argued in depth at WP:RSN rather than at here, as it will and can have a project-wide repurcussion on existing and new articles that rely only/largely on this two newspapers as sources. Additionally, your intepretation of WP:MULTSOURCES if is to stand, will see that news published in NBC News, MSNBC, CNBC, and UK's Sky News as one source (Comcast), The Times, Dow Jones, The Wall Street Journal, The Sun, Herald Sun as one source (News Corp.), etc. – robertsky ( talk) 09:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Mediacorp: No long term significance. As it currently stands, this alongside 8 Dukes of Caldecott Hill were akin to marketing efforts in the early 2000s. Mentions of these terms have largely fizzled out with occasionally mentions of what these (ex-)artistes are up to. Unless there is a substantial increase in content along the lines of Five Tiger Generals of TVB, this can be merged into Mediacorp and/or create another article with its celebrity management agency as the topic (provided there're enough sources to write one. i.e. like ABS-CBN's Star Magic). – robertsky ( talk) 07:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 05:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No redirect either. This is pure WP:PROMO content and a plain WP:ADVERT, something that has been unusually endemic with the Mediacorp and TVB channels. If this was Nine Network, the BBC, or CBS doing this we would've WP:TNT'ed this under the same rationale a decade ago. And feel free to bring up more Tiger Beat-like sludge like Five Tiger Generals of TVB. Nate • ( chatter) 20:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. It's clear the consensus is to Keep this article but it still could use some editing attention. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Mortar, Bihar

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

I think that the article Mortar, Bihar should be deleted because it does not indicate its specialty or NOTABILITY. Mortar is a village, and there are many other villages that do not have articles. Mast303 ( talk) 04:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I believe you are looking at this the wrong way. There are many villages that don't have pages on them simply because they haven't been created yet, not because they are not notable. Usually, all locations recognized as places/subdivisions by countries are considered notable. See "Populated, legally recognized places" in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places. Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Discussion page was created without the {{ afd2}} template. Fixed now. @ Mast303: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. -- Finngall talk 17:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bihar. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The nomination is obviously incorrect, per the above, but can anyone find sources for this? Neither the national census nor the Begusarai site seems to list this village under this spelling. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I've changed the coordinates (see Talk page for explanation [ [40]]. The village is named in a list derived from the Indian census. However, the link I was putting in to support this is Wikipedia blacklisted for some reason. (Google and my browser have no link warnings). There's also problems accessing the official census website. Still, on the assumption the source is reliable, Mortar is a populated, legally recognised place and notability is presumed under WP:GEOLAND. Rupples ( talk) 22:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    I have no problem accessing the official census website, but it doesn't have an entry for Mortar, as I showed above. Do you have a better source than Google Maps, which is often inaccurate? You can enter a blacklisted site here in slightly obfuscated form so that it doesn't try to create a link. Phil Bridger ( talk) 22:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hi @ Phil Bridger. Firefox is rejecting your link with this warning [41]. Here's an obfuscated form of the link I was going to include: villageinfo.in/bihar/begusarai/garhpura/mortar Rupples ( talk) 00:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Strange. Firefox 108.0.1 for Linux displays it for me. I note that villageinfo.in comes with a disclaimer at villageinfo.in/terms that says:

    This website is a privately maintained site and does not have any official connection or affiliation whatsoever to government related organizations, or to the Government of India, nor is it endorsed or supported by any of them in any way.
    The contents of this Website are based on information generally available to the public from sources believed to be reliable. No representation is made that it is timely, accurate or complete. We have taken due care and caution in compilation of data as this has been obtained from various sources including which it considers reliable and first hand. However, we do not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of any information. The information herein, together with all estimates and forecasts, can change without notice.

    Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes. Your search briefly 'came on' and I could see your no results before Firefox shut it down again. Weird! I was able to access the site via a different Wikipedia page and searched for Mortar in the box towards the bottom of the following page after ticking "Village" [42]. The population was given as 1,817 with a link to an Excel doc, which I haven't clicked on. Rupples ( talk) 20:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Using Garhpura as the search term is of help in proving a village named Mortar exists but doesn't assist with its exact location. Got to [43] - Mortar is named in the snippet view on page 156. Type Mortar in the search box at the top. Page 122 pops up for Mortar and shows population, area etc. Rupples ( talk) 17:40, 1 January 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. Discounting socks and those with a COI, there is a clear consensus that, right now, SIGCOV of this film doesn't exist and therefore, the article should be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Young Hunters: The Beast of Bevendean

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

The director's page, which was a suitable redirect target was just deleted. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

The purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film is to provide comprehensive and detailed articles on Wikipedia about topics related to films. This article falls within that. It has recently been requested that this article be improved - which it has been. References and citations for this article have increased 150% from reliable sources. One contributor deleted, or prosed for deletion several times, but has not justified this current proposal. Time is best spent improving articles rather than deleting them. Suedeakin01 ( talk) 10:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a database, and the film fails both GNG and NFILM. The first source is a database, the second is Amazon, the third source is not WP:SIGCOV, the fourth is probably not RS, and the fifth might be SIGCOV, but is not nearly enough on its own. I could not find any reviews in RS. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 11:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Yes Wikipedia is not a database, no one said it was. It is an encyclopaedia for the benefit of the public. Removing an article is not the way to proceed. As it does not help the users of Wikipedia. I disagree with your assessment of RS as two press articles relate directly to the film's production. Suedeakin01 ( talk) 13:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    The film does pass WP: GNG and NFILM as it is both noteworthy, and the references used are from reliable and significant sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suedeakin01 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    I disagree that the The Argus source is significant. The article is only about 180 words long. A large portion of the article is made up of quotes from the director and some background information of the director. It is hardly significant coverage. As for the argument that the article is helpful, see WP:ITSUSEFUL. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 14:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    The article has a number of citations and references at the moment. 5 references at the current time. There are 1000s of Articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film with fewer (some far fewer) references. Some of these articles were created by the user who has recommended this page for deletion. Deleting an article doesn't help anyone I'm afraid. Suedeakin01 ( talk) 14:16, 31 December 2022
    The number of sources is irrelevant. One is Amazon, one is a database, and one is non-RS, and of the last two, one is not SIGCOV. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSHELPFUL. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 00:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is your opinion. Radio Times is not a 'Database'. The news articles are SIGCOV. The other source is a RS. If Amazon is not considered reliable source than this can be replaced. But no reason for deletion of this article. Suedeakin01 ( talk) 17:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Again, while RadioTimes is not a database, the first source is just a listing, which is not SIGCOV. The Argus article is far too short to be considered SIGCOV. Even if visionary-thinking.net is reliable, the article is merely a plot summary. The new source you added is merely a cast list. The only possibly SIGCOV source would be the last. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 00:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Radio Times reference confirms facts mentioned in the article i.e. cast and crew etc. That is it's purpose. RE: The Argus you seem to be against the news article because of it's length, which is irrelevant. It confirms information stated in the article - which is the purpose of the citation. Suedeakin01 ( talk) 14:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    I never said that the RadioTimes reference could not be used, I only stated that it does not count towards notability. The length of an article does determine if the article counts as SIGCOV. Again, I never said that The Argus source could not be used, just that it does not count towards notability as it is not SIGCOV. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 14:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is an article about a noteworthy children's film. It passes NFILM and is reasonably well referenced. It could be improved with further detail on 'plot' perhaps and a section on the film's reception. There is enough coverage to meet wiki WP:GNG Capulet1 ( talk) 16:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    There can't be a reception section if reviews in RS don't exist. The article is not reasonably well referenced. The first source is a database, the second is Amazon, the third source is not WP:SIGCOV, the fourth is probably not RS, and the fifth might be SIGCOV, but is not nearly enough on its own. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The best sources are the ones from The Argus and Brighton and Hove Independent. These are both local interest stories from newspapers in the director's hometown. Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Jfire ( talk) 04:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Regarding Wikipedia:Notability then the following must be satisfied; "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources  "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources" ie secondary, & "Independent of the subject", criteria which both of the newspapers you mention meet. WP:GNG says nothing about being a regional publication - all printed newspapers are regional. Actually on the internet, they are not even regional - they are international. It is a notable film so does meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) Suedeakin01 ( talk) 14:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep JayShurey This is a notable children's film, and the sources are reliable ( talk) 14:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Note that this user likely has a conflict of interest, as Jay Shurey is credited as a producer of this film. Jfire ( talk) 03:45, 3 January 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Junction 56 Distillery

Junction 56 Distillery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Distillery doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage in independent, non-local sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Boma Akpore

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

Article about a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Only known for being a housemate in the Big Brother Season 6. A show they fail to win. The subject also appeared in minor movie roles. — Nnadigoodluck ███ 00:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply


  • Keep Good morning. Wikipedia is built on citations from independent sources and good faith i.e believing in rhe judgement of your fellow Wikipedians. And because you have no interest in a topic doesn't mean it isn't notable.
Some Wikipedia pages are more significant than others. Not all Wikipedia pages can be about characters as profound as Adolf Hitler or Barack Obama. However saying a page isn't notable, just because it is not as notable as some others is fallacy.
Here are Credible media houses (that are Blue linked) citing what roles he played in a movie that someone he has the guts to call irrelevant.
Put the page up for improvement and not deletion because thats the best course of action. If we really want to work, in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about, we should all be improving pages, not deleting them
Bella Naija, [1] Daily Post (Nigeria), [2] P.M. News, [3] and The Guardian (Nigeria) [4] And all these were even before he went to Big Brother Naija.
The subject not winning Big Brother Naija doesn't make him non notable. As a matter of fact,most past winners of Big Brother Naija winners have gone into oblivion after winning. From Katung Aduwak, Miracle Igbokwe, Whitemoney.

References

  1. ^ "Life Before #BBNaija: From Hollywood to Nollywood, Boma Has Worked With Some of Your Fave Celebs". Bella Naija. 2021-07-28. Retrieved 2022-07-04.
  2. ^ Olowolagba, Fikayo (2021-07-25). "BBNaija Season 6: Boma Starred In 'Blacklist', Already A Star – Nigerians React". Daily Post (Nigeria). Retrieved 2022-07-03.
  3. ^ "Boma Akpore BBNaija Housemate Already A Hollywood Star". P.M. News. 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-05.
  4. ^ Diamond, Maria (2020-08-29). "Boma Akpore BBNaija Housemate Already A Hollywood Star". The Guardian (Nigeria). Retrieved 2022-07-05.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaekuma ( talk • contribs) 9:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Did you actually read those articles WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO or you're just brandishing links for the sake of it. What I'm expecting is that the page be put up for improvement, because saying the subject isn't notable is fallacy. But there is room for improvement
A Wikipedia rule also says that if you don't know much about something, its okay to leave it the way it is. If you don't have a full grasp on Nigerian stuff, then it is not a must you deliberate on it sir. Amaekuma ( talk) 23:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Stating that other experienced Wikipedia editors are brandishing links for the sake of it and commenting that A Wikipedia rule also says that if you don't know much about something, its okay to leave it the way it is is inaccurate. Contrary to your previous comments, no editor is comparing the notability of this in contrast to other articles, so I'm unsure where you got this part from. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The sources are routine announcements, interviews, and mentions that fail WP:SIGCOV, as per WP:GNG, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources, which is the case here. The roles are minor and also fails WP:NACTOR, I could not find WP:SIGCOV-meeting sources per my BEFORE. VickKiang (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Municipalities of Brazil. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

List of municipalities of Brazil

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

I don't see any use in this article. Not only does this page have an excessive amount of bytes, it also comprises of primarily redundant information which is viewable by going to the pages List of municipalities in blank, in which it has every municipality by state. It serves no purpose, and perhaps at the very least be turned into a redirect into Municipalities of Brazil where the lists of municipalities of brazil are shown. Something should be done about this article, anyways. MrMeAndMrMe Let's talk 00:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_27&oldid=1131381326"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 26 December 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Norodom Ekcharin

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

Unclear if subject actually exists given lack of reliable/non-Wordpress sources. Information about existence, imposter, and other details cannot be independently confirmed (i.e. the "official" biography of father Norodom Yuvaneath does not mention subject in list of children). Possible COI with major contributor KentNewland who has made claims such as the former Queen informing her grandchildren about the "imposter" via text message on editor GenQuest's talk page. Would recommend deletion or draftifying to go through the AfC process. Kazamzam ( talk) 23:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Cambodia. Kazamzam ( talk) 23:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Well, he existed, at least according to this Phnom Penh post [1], but we're going to need a lot more sourcing before we can keep this. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Draftify until the AfC is complete seems like an acceptable option. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify: I suspect the subject, who died as a child, is legit. I did a lot of work on this article trying to salvage what I could, however, the lack of RS on the toddler is concerning. But, he is royalty, so there's that. I suspect there are probably more foreign sources available, so I do not support outright deletion, and a merge to the father could well be in order. if sources are found. GenQuest "scribble" 03:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Phnom Penh post source is not correct and it was an old news. It was back in the day when Ekcharin impersonator was able to con his way to upper chain of the Norodom royal family. This Ekcharin impersonator made up story to credit his existence and unfortunately they were already widespread among one of Julio A. Jeldres' books and onto many other medias. The family of Norodom Yuvaneath did accept him as the biological son at that time and they were also tricked to believe with the false DNA report created by Ekcharin impersonator. The final DNS test that was taken place (conducted by Norodom Yuvaneath's oldest son) in Aug of 2022 indicates that he is not the survival and biological son. The family had already disconnected their associations with this person. I understand that Wiki requires RS to credit any of these new findings but unfortunately there aren't any available at this moment. EFE.com is working on an updated story on this matter and I have no idea when they are going to publish it. I hope this Wiki article will be given some more time and chances to sort things out otherwise I understand that deletion is necessary if RS is not presenting any sooner (or worst: reverting back to the original Ekcharin impersonator biography). This Ekcharin impersonator is still alive indeed but his official name that appears in his Swedish passport is Charin Norodom. Charin is a common name among Cambodians. But he definitely is not "the Ekcharin", the biological son, of Tea Kim Yin for sure. For argument sake and let say the real Ekcharin is still alive, then the DNA will have to prove it via Ancestry or MyHeritage.com or other similar sites if the potential child and the mother both had submitted their DNA samples. Otherwise, anyone can claim to be Ekcharin Norodom and especially when the child is already dead. The payoff is just too good to pass if a person has a chance to become a part of a royal family. KentNewland ( talk) 01:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
As you noted, none of the claims you have made above or in the article have reliable sources. Given the amount of information on the page, I think the best option is to draftify. I do not think it is appropriate to keep unverified statements on WP about DNA tests having been conducted as that's quite a big claim to make about someone's personal and familial life with nothing to go on, royalty or otherwise. Kazamzam ( talk) 04:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Francisco de la O

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

Unsourced article of a lesser known Mexican actor. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Only source provided is a random magazine article, which talks about a relationship that isn't even mentioned in the article anyway. CycloneYoris talk! 23:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Clint Everts

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

not notable Fbdave ( talk) 23:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and United States of America. AllyD ( talk) 07:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Found couple of sources that cover him in detail ( part 1/ part 2) and [2]. Alvaldi ( talk) 10:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    The first of those is almost wholly quotes/"Everts (or Barnett) said", though -- what's left is maybe four independent secondary sentences, with at least one of those being unencyclopedic trivia (description of his car). JoelleJay ( talk) 15:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    As nice as his car was, you are right regarding that source, on a second look it doesn't have a whole lot that goes towards GNG. There are other sources from the previous AfD that I actually hadn't noticed, these are probably the best of them [3] [4] [5] (the one in Baseball America is undoubtedly the best). The rest that was there are just minor routine stories or brief mentions [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] plus one dead link [13] Alvaldi ( talk) 16:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Washington Nationals first-round draft picks where he is mentioned. The player himself is not notable and the sourcing routine. Spanneraol ( talk) 14:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    • and the sourcing routine – ROUTINE is part of the notability guideline for events. A person is not an event, so that policy does not apply here. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems to pass GNG, see the two sources listed by Alvaldi, plus [14] [15] [16] [17] (although it only gives an abstract, the title sounds like it would be sigcov, same with [18]) and [19] - there's also some other sources that were listed by Muboshgu ( talk · contribs) at the previous afd that I can't access. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per GNG. Several sources above plus some material about him in Moneyball. Rlendog ( talk) 01:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The above sources support that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:53, 3 January 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! 22:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Pablo Hell

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

Article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The sources are mostly PR pieces, this is one. Definitely not notable at this point. Jamiebuba ( talk) 22:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I updated the page with more sources and I did go back and double-check, it appears he could qualify for notability as he has been frequently mentioned in just one year for a notable sub-genre of music, trap hip-hop. Some of the articles are press release, but many do bring up past feats and discussion as to why he is a notable subject. LLVKAS ( talk) 00:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Deletion contested on article talk page so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment That particular music genre is not in my wheelhouse, so I can't comment how RS the new sources are. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Indian School Al-Seeb

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of coverage. Only a primary source supplied. LibStar ( talk) 22:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - no non-primary sources found on the internet. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 00:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Chris Bell (director)

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria for WP:FILMMAKER and for WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethweimaster ( talk • contribs)

  • Weak Keep There are some interviews from LA Times and Pacific Stabdard involving the subject, and some of his works are notable enough to have their own articles. But the Wikipedia article itself is written like a promotion. If the article did not get rewritten into a more unbiased manner, and if more sources weren't given by next week, then it's recommended to be deleted. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 17:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning towards Delete I basically agree with Tutwakhamoe. While the films seem to be notable for a page, I dont think he has enough of a body of work for his own page. You could argue either way but, the way the page is written currently and cited is terrible. Using IMDB and Linkedin to source info is not acceptable at all. I doubt anyone not affiliated with him will take enough interest to save this page. If someone does some work and can find articles, i would consider keeping it but, as it stands it could almost be nominated for a speedy deletion. ScienceAdvisor ( talk) 21:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood ( talk) 21:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, already lacks enough sources for WP:BLP and I could find few sources of value online. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep there's an article in the LA Times [20] and this about his Prescription Thugs film at Tribeca in the Hollywood Reporter [21]. Could perhaps merge to one of his films, Prescription Thugs seems to have some coverage, but no article here on wiki. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep—Though it appears that Bell is currently only notable via his directorial activity on an acclaimed documentary, I'm thinking that there might be sufficient content related to his motivations around co-writing and directing this documentary to justify keeping the article. I've made some additions to the article, which can be seen via this diff link (this is the full diff between nomination and my last contribution). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep Two of Bell's films have been reviewed by The New York Times ( 1, 2), The Los Angeles Times ( 3, 4), and Variety ( 5, 6), among other publications. Mooonswimmer 23:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep None of the individual sources are particularly strong, but I think that the sum total of them just scrapes by to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:50, 3 January 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! 22:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

El Mundo que inventamos

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no verifiable reviews found in a BEFORE. Perma-stub since 2007 DonaldD23 talk to me 23:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 17:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment the Spanish wikipedia article quotes two newspaper reviews and another review translated here but unfortunately it doesn't give any links for them, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I didn't find any WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY, reliable sources. Spanish is my first language, so it's possible I don't know where to look, but until someone can show me, I think we should delete. Jacona ( talk) 12:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If La Nación or Clarín have online archives, we might be able to find the reviews listed in the article on Spanish Wiki. Otherwise, not much substantial coverage. I could only find passing mentions in a few books. Redirect to the director's page ( Fernando Siro) if the reviews in the aforementioned publications are not recovered. Mooonswimmer 00:12, 3 January 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 22:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Taylor St. Claire

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

A porn film actress and porn director lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is not passed. Of the sources in the article IMDb is not a reliable source, the porn industry sources are not significant content except one which is an interview and the New York Times article does not mention her at all. A seach on Google found nothing better. I prodded this but it was deprodded because AVN is considered a reliable source but in that case there is still only one reliable source with significant content in the form of an interview. Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to point to another Eric Choi. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Eric Choi

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

BLP of the inventor of the Electrolytic Self-Cleaning Water Pipe, who was once on tv. Nothing to indicate notability in Wikipedia terms. Mccapra ( talk) 19:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Mccapra ( talk) 19:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to We Came as Romans, a musical ensemble in which another Eric Choi performed. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete His only claims to fame are being on a hidden camera show and a patent. Unfortunately, the patent search fails and I can't find any trace of it. Lamona ( talk) 19:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Reply - @ Mccapra:, @ Onel5969:, @ Lamona:, why exactly are we opposed to redirecting with history in tact? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
      I do not have an objection to a redirect - except that it keeps getting recreated. If redirected, it should be protected from re-creation. Onel5969 TT me 16:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Reply - I also, have zero objection to salting the link. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Reply there’s also Eric Choi (disambiguation) which will be redundant after this is deleted and hopefully salted. The disambiguation page can be repurposed as a redirect once this is gone. Mccapra ( talk) 16:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • We wouldn’t redirect it as a disambiguation page. If this page is deleted, we could turn the disambiguation into Eric Choi (We Came As Romans) or something and redirect that as a plausible search term. It’s not clear to me why we’d particularly want to keep the edit history of this page, but I’m not really bothered if it makes more sense to redirect this instead. Mccapra ( talk) 17:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Reply - @ Mccapra:, I see no reason at all to even create "Eric Choi (We Came As Romans)". We do not even need "Eric Choi (disambiguation)". The redirect for "Eric Choi" to We Came as Romans was probably just fine the way that it was, and there is no need at all to delete the page history. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:32, 2 January 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) 18:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Abbas Sajwani

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

Spam. The subject is only mentioned in the first line of the article, and then the article goes to talk about some company (notable or not) owned by the father of the subject. Ymblanter ( talk) 17:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

The subject is mentioned at the beginning and then the article goes to talk about a company he founded and still owns. It's not owned by his father. -- Abdullah Arfa ( talk) 18:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This is a weird one. I agree, the article is not about the person; the article is about his business. It should, if it is kept, be moved to the name of the business, and it should be assessed as a business, not as a person. My feeling is that it is blatantly promotional, and the articles used as references look like the sort of commissioned articles or regurgitated press-releases that are not independent of the subject, and therefore I would have sympathy with deletion. But I lack expertise on businesses. Elemimele ( talk) 18:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete The person is only ever mentioned in press-releases. Nothing notable found. Agreed the article is odd. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Fay

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

Apparently Mr. Fay, or someone close to him, wrote the initial versions of the article under the username User:BearCreekObservatory but never declared a conflict of interest, despite Bear Creek Observatory's homepage saying that it was "designed and built by Jonathan Fay." The article was later turned into a redirect but the article has been revived, and I can find no significant coverage of this person. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 17:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose – Notable computer scientist and astronomer. I added links to publications and third party references. Ghettoblaster ( talk) 12:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Checked all 18 references and none except for the interview have provided significant coverage on Fay as a person. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 18:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Appears to be a software engineer with a great job and lots of ideas but clearly not notable, per the sources. There is no wide coverage to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and does not pass WP:BASIC. AuthorAuthor ( talk) 20:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • In the meantime, I added additional information I found on the web to show notability. Also, I added a number of additional independent 3rd party references. Ghettoblaster ( talk) 21:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    I just checked the new sources you have added: none of these provide significant coverage as they are all passing mentions of Jonathan Fay. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 06:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm only finding mentions - articles about the software list him and Curtis Wong as the developers, but there's nothing else about him. If there is any other information it might make sense to add it to the article for the software since I don't see enough to support a separate article. Lamona ( talk) 22:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Failed to find more sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OKamigo ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:29, 3 January 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 Amateur radio in India. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Mangalore Amateur Radio Club

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

It exists, but couldn't find any in-depth coverage of this organization. The most in-depth source is a press release about the death of the founder. And even that doesn't truly go into depth about the organization. Other than that, there are simply mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Onel5969 TT me 14:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Onel5969, we have added more notability source form book, kindly review the articles ChiK ( talk) 17:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: Most of the sources just look to be brief mentions of lists of such clubs, and no in dept coverage. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Amateur radio in India per WP:ATD. That page currently doesn't have a "Clubs" section, but one could be created, and a shortened version of this content could go there. The multiple mentions in The Times of India are impressive, but not in-depth enough for a standalone Wikipedia entry. The content and sources are good though, and could be incorporated into a larger article. Cielquiparle ( talk) 13:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

John Bosnitch

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

This person is clearly mentioned a fair few times in the story of Bobby Fischer, but I can't seem to find WP:SIGCOV for him, and the existing references in the article are mostly bad. Can't say I see how this meets WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ANYBIO. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 16:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

MedBelle.com

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

Notability. Given sources are either self-published or run of the mill coverage. Except the Irish Times one, which merely namechecks them ar the originator or the data which the story is about. I dont think thats enough. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Chuck Pankow

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

This BLP is completely unsourced and I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that would confer notability. A lot of content has been removed over years for BLP verifiability concerns; the article has been tagged for notability for nearly three years, is not eligible for BLPPROD (already performed), and from the infobox and few extant sources, is above the bar for A7 (which I declined). All I see are databases and a few mentions connecting the subject to his partner, but databases alone are insufficient and notability is not inherited. Complex/ Rational 16:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Kakkipada

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

This is an upcoming film with no significant claim to notability. Shoerack ( talk) 15:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Khizri Zapirov

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

I declined a speedy deletion nomination for this article (not a straightforward A7/G11). However, I agree that many of the sources may not be reliable (indicated in the speedy tag), and I'm not finding additional significant coverage in reliable sources in a WP:BEFORE search. The most I see is pranks covered by various media outlets, millions of subscribers, and legal issues, though given the quality of sources (e.g., The Sun) and lack of in-depth coverage, I have doubts that this is sufficent. From what I see, the general notability guideline and/or the subject notability guideline for entertainers are not clearly satisfied, though I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if sufficient sourcing exists – especially in Russian-language sources. Complex/ Rational 15:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I am leaning toward weak delete. The subject is mostly appears as a suspect of a crime in Russian language sources, (e.g. [23]), but the coverage seems to be insufficient to pass WP:GNG and does not provide enough details for a fair BLP page. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No notability-establishing sources have been found. Sandstein 18:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Beata Syta

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

I found nothing which could help in substantiating this article. Hence fails WP:GNG. zoglophie 13:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, Olympics, and Poland. zoglophie 13:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I beleive that any athlete who competed at an Olypic Games is considered notable. The article has sources- and had them when nominated for deletion- and I think the nominator should have a look at WP:BEFORE. I found [24] very quickly: looks pretty solid to me. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
@ TheLongTone: That is just a database. Every athlete who has participated in Olympics has it. Olympians are also being redirected/deleted per new guidelines. Where are the sources contributing to WP:SIGCOV being met? zoglophie 15:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Certainly, but I would imagine that an an olympian there would have been significant print coverage in her country of origin. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Your belief is not consistent with community consensus. WP:NOLY was reduced from participants to medal winners some time ago) as experience has shown that Olympic participation is not in itself sufficient as an indicator of the existence of significant coverage (or notability). The result of successive discussions and RFCs in recent years has been substantial changes to notability guidelines: principally WP:NSPORT, including WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTCRIT. Essentially, significant coverage must be demonstrated, not imagined. wjemather please leave a message... 16:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I respect your imaginations, but to keep this article we would need some sources. Thankyou. zoglophie 15:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete GNG still applies. We have nothing showing she's been mentioned in media; I think she might run a restaurant in Poland now, but it's not notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing but badminton databases and Wikipedia mirrors, unfortunately. Kingsif ( talk) 03:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply
comment I'm most surprised that wiki guidelines do not consider Olympians to be per se notable, given that wikipedia seem to consider anybody who has ever even looked at a football to be notable. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Mere participation is no longer a criterion of any sports notability guidelines. wjemather please leave a message... 16:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I do believe tht all article in Wikipedia should be support with sources. However, we shouldn't ignore existing offline sources either. Ex: in this article, said tht Beata Syta mentioned in "Głuszek, Leksykon 1999" book. Besides competing in Olympic Games and won some national championships title, she also 2nd in 1991 Czechoslovakian International, 3rd in 1990 and 1991 Bulgarian International, 1990 Hungarian International, 1992 Swiss Open, and 1994 Victor Cup. Based on these achievements, we can expand the article. Thanks Stvbastian ( talk) 02:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 14:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - despite ample time to find sources, no suitable ones have been presented. WP:SPORTBASIC requires that [sports] biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. The last part is extremely important. Olympics.com and Olympedia and other such sources therefore do not confer notability. As she did not win a medal in the Olympics, she doesn't meet WP:NOLY. We are therefore left only with WP:GNG, which SPORTBASIC is based on. ProQuest gives us nothing useful. Likewise with Google Books. Lastly, this Polish source search doesn't really help us. I did find a Wordpress site called Okiem Jadwigi but it's just a personal blog and the coverage is weak anyway, amounting to nothing more than one team listing and a few image captions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:04, 2 January 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. Sandstein 18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The Yellow Festival

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE. All awards appear to be minor DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Dave Routledge

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

fails WP:GNG, even in darts he is not a notable figure, he accomplished nothing of note All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 13:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Really tried hard to find sources for this person but found no significant sources. I went to the third page of Google, multiple screens of DDG, and internet archive but found nothing. Routledge hasn't won awards so he is not notable. Carpimaps ( talk) 14:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Lalan Chaudhary (politician)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, currently zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Lalan Chaudhary is CPIM Bihar State secretary. So it is notable to write an article about him. Many biographies (I cannot remember the names, but I have seen) in Wikipedia are smaller in length than it and have very less citations. This biography about Lalan Chaudhary has 4 citations. XYZ 250706 ( talk) 15:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As per as nom. State Secretary of any party doesn't passes WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 19:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As stated above, state secretary is not a position that awards WP:NPOL#1. A search in both Hindi and English did not return WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It might be worth mentioning here that Bihar has a population of 104+ million, so being a state-level leader of a party there isn't a small affair. In terms of coverage, note that transliterations vary in English. I found more material relating to his role as leader in 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest. -- Soman ( talk) 20:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. Ordinarily I would agree with Soman, but the party in question doesn't have a substantial presence in the state of Bihar; as best as I can tell it received less than 1% of the statewide vote in the last election [25], less even that the two other factions of the Communist Party of India. My !vote is "weak" because I suspect there may be coverage in the non-English media, but what has been provided so far isn't enough for GNG in my view. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:58, 3 January 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) 17:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Pamela Allier

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

No reason to be on Wikipedia. Doenst comply with ANYBIO requirements; spam. No RS Edit.pdf ( talk) 13:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment I did find these sources: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] However, I am not sure how independent and reliable they are. Carpimaps ( talk) 14:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Internet. North America 1000 16:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Looking at the sources on the article, from Carpimaps, and what I can find online, articles for showing Instagram posts of her outfits or sources commenting on what she wears or primary sources (like interviews) don't demonstrate notability per WP:NBASIC or WP:CREATIVE in the slightest. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 19:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only sources list her as "one to follow" or comment on the outfits she's worn. Nothing of substance for GNG that we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:01, 3 January 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) 17:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Andreas Dracopoulos

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

Promo piece on a non-notable person, with likely COI issues. Earlier declined at AfC, then copypasted into the main space. After that was redraftified, this third attempt was published against advice, so let's see what the good folks at AfD make of it. The sources cited are all primary, mostly close to the subject, and not one of them contributes towards notability; a BEFORE search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

And the speedy deletion request was declined. So continue to discuss. Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Consensus is still divided between "keep" and "merge" after the relist. A discussion about merging can continue in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2023) 11:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Rahul Ligma

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

Received a short burst/spike of news reports last month and not much more. Suggest delete or merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. –– FormalDude (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This poor guy can't catch a break: first he's fired from Twitter, then laid off from FTX, and now he's having his Wikipedia page deleted! How could we delete what The India Times calls "one of the greatest pranks on the internet"? As the Ligma meme and the FTX firing fall outside the lines of the Twitter acquisition, merging there would lose important before-and-after context. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE I think Keep is better than merging there (or to Media prank or Culture jamming) as we would run up against weight and coatrack issues and have to trim quite a bit. A standalone page is the best way to WP:PRESERVE everything. As page creator. BBQboffin ( talk) 19:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The character has appeared twice now in both FTX and Twitter, so it's not one of these "one event" type scenarios that requires lots of bars to be surpassed. Nor is it a BLP1E, considering it's a fictional person. Therefore all I think we need here is significant coverage, which exists. CT55555( talk) 20:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    • But, a lack of any WP:LASTING coverage suggests that topic is not notable. –– FormalDude (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
      WP:LASTING is something we should consider for event articles. If this was an event article, I would say it was too early to know if this was lasting. As it is not an event article, I will instead just point to WP:GNG as what I consider to be the appropriate guidance. CT55555( talk) 03:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
      You just said it wasn't a "one event" type scenario because there were two events (at Twitter and FTX). Now you're saying neither was an event? I should mention the requirement of having WP:SUSTAINED coverage also applies to GNG. –– FormalDude (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
      The article is not about an event. It is about topic whose notability stems from multiple events. Therefore the common reasons used to justify deleting and article because it is connected to just one event cannot be used.
      I hope I'm being clear. If I'm not, then just take away this main point: I think this passes WP:GNG. It's OK for us to disagree, but I don't want to stray into bludgeoning here, so hopefully this is my last comment. CT55555( talk) 03:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
      Sure, I just don't understand how you think a couple news reports from last month and nothing else is a sign of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. –– FormalDude (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk A one time reaction character is not notable because of WP:NTEMP. A guy doing a Ligma joke is not something that fits here
Ask me about air Cryogenic air ( talk) 22:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This article is perfectly consistent with what Wikipedia covers, in my opinion. Dingolover6969 ( talk) 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Articles do not lose their notability, and I agree WP:LASTING was written with events in mind and not people. I would not be opposed to a merge though, given that I think it could be better suited in another article Rlink2 ( talk) 22:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Rlink2 This is more about an event than a person. Fictional person (performance, meme) is an event, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Even as a hoax, the spirit of WP:BLP1E applies. We cover individuals when they have attracted more than 15 minutes of fame. If they only receive a burst of news coverage around one event, we mention it as part of a broader topic, if at all. I am fine with a merge if someone can make it fit. Shooterwalker ( talk) 19:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Did you catch that there was two events? One about Twitter and one about the crypto company? CT55555( talk) 19:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Three events if you count the fictional re-hiring, which was being reported on as actual news on November 16-17 by several outlets almost three weeks after the initial October 28 prank, and then there's the November 23 Daily Beast story on it. That's WP:SUSTAINED enough, isn't it? Also the presidential run [33] but that might be too WP:PROMO to put in the article although it's quite funny and the linked Twitter accounts are those of the actors themselves. BBQboffin ( talk) 19:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    It seems to me to be part of the same event, not sustained. Just covering a story that developed over few weeks. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a few more days/week to break the logjam between those advocating Keep and those seeking a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This article's subject is a satirical fictionalized persona, much like Stephen Colbert (character). WP:DEL-REASON#8 is specific that we should delete if the article subject fails the relevant notability guideline; rather stretching the scope of WP:NEVENT (the notability guideline relevant to events) or WP:NBIO (the notability guideline relevant to real people) in judging this article's notability, it's more appropriate to judge this article's subject in light of the WP:GNG. And, through that lens, the fictionalized persona clearly passes the relevant notability criteria, having been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS does not seem an impediment here either; this article is not original reporting, written in news style, celebrity gossip, nor a violation of WP:NOTWHOSWHO.
    The ultimate question here is whether it's wiser to merge our coverage of this persona into another article on the basis that the persona is better covered in that article. And, while I'd be tempted to do that if this persona only were covered in the context of the Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk or some greater Twitter-related shebang, I don't see how that would be an improvement to our encyclopedia when the character is also covered in the context of the FTX collapse. In my view, it would be better to have coverage of this persona in a standalone article, rather than having our coverage be merely scattered about in multiple articles that the current standalone one would have to be merged into. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 08:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    • That's an extremely narrow construing of WP:NOTNEWS. Topics like this one that have only received routine, short-lived news coverage are often considered a violation of that policy.
Furthermore, even if we don't apply anything besides GNG, WP:SUSTAINED is a requirement of GNG. Can you explain if you think this topic has sustained coverage and why? –– FormalDude (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
It's surely too early to know if coverage will be sustained, but I don't consider that a good reason to delete, more a reason to wait and see. Can you imagine how weird the encyclopedia would be if everything that had not yet got sustained coverage was deleted? CT55555( talk) 18:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
How is one month not enough? Two weeks of news followed by two weeks of silence is evidence that the coverage is not sustained. If it was, there would be new coverage coming out by now. –– FormalDude (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't agree with your analysis. I consider it normal that something will have gaps in coverage for a few weeks. This reminds me of the conversation that occurred at similarly satirical page Jorts when so many were convinced coverage would fade. CT55555( talk) 18:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
And what is the harm in merging the content until there is sufficient evidence of lasting coverage? –– FormalDude (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I doubt any path forward would cause harm, maybe deleting would if we really stretched the meaning of harm. Harm avoidance isn't the basis of my argument. Following WP:GNG is my theme here. We're not agreeing and repeating ourselves further seems unlikely to bring us to consensus. I will try to make this my last comment and I hope we can leave this with an agree-to-disagree type situation please. CT55555( talk) 23:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
No, it's an utterly reasonable reading of WP:NOTNEWS. You're free to disagree, of course, but I see no reason that the significant coverage of this character in the context of multiple events is somehow reduced to a routine dog-bites-man-level story. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Red-tailed hawk and BBQboffin. Kablammo ( talk) 21:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more round. Consensus seems to be roughly divided between "keep" and "merge".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge I simply don't think there is enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage here. The FTX stuff was less than a month after the initial Twitter incident. If they keep receiving coverage for future incidents then maybe it will deserve an article, but I don't think the current coverage justifies more than a few sentences at most. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from 4 days ago https://freebeacon.com/culture/2022-man-of-the-year-rahul-ligma-and-daniel-johnson/ CT55555( talk) 02:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    That's not a reliable source and they're not even reporting anything new... –– FormalDude (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is not listed as a depreciated or reliable source, we are therefore expected to use our judgement. I see no reason to discount it as a source, I'm not using it to cite something, and I'm posting this to show that coverage is sustained, which is something you challenged above. CT55555( talk) 11:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I already !voted delete above, but want to make it clear that a merge would work. I agree with Hemiauchenia, and a few weeks of fame is not sustained coverage. WP:BLP asks for a lot more, and we should wait to see if anyone is still talking about this person in a year. A merge allows us to revisit this when those sources come. Shooterwalker ( talk) 01:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Please elaborate how you think "a merge would work" as at present the Twitter acquisition makes no mention of the subject. If you "agree with Hemiauchenia" that the character justifies "a few sentences at most" that evisceration of content and sources (there are 27 currently) would be extreme. I appreciate your candor in your delete !vote as that is what "merge" really is. I realize I can make no demands on your time, but I would present as an open challenge to any editor here to please summarize in "a few sentences" the content and context of the existing article that would be an improvement on the standalone page. We're WP:NOTPAPER here, and if it takes a few paragraphs to include everything, well, electrons are cheap. BBQboffin ( talk) 04:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Merge means you move content from here to an existing article... the existing article doesn't have to have any mention of the merged topic beforehand, it just has to be a suitable destination for the content by scope. –– FormalDude (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    No, a merge is a merge, and sometimes a compromise to deletion. Take this as a reminder to WP:AGF and look for WP:CONSENSUS, instead of turning AFD into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Some topics fail WP:NOTNEWS and we don't create separate articles for each and every burst of media coverage. But sometimes that coverage might be briefly summarized as part of a WP:SUSTAINED article topic. The main Twitter acquisition article has had sustained coverage almost all year, and sources will likely analyze it for years to come. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is an important story of media bias causing generalised media failures, one of the most important topics of the decade. Tallard ( talk) 21:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. There is one article in TechCrunch dated December 24, "This year in tech felt like a simulation", which mentions Rahul Ligma in the context of "absurd events in tech" and their implications including fraud. Simply merging the content into the Twitter acquisition article and the FTX article buries the bigger picture story about the failure of the media to reliably report the news (and detracts from the serious coverage of those other topics). While I'm personally not a fan of giving undue credence to pranks, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to delete, and in this case it was more than just a single incident, with follow-up reporting required in many cases by the media to critique and/or admit failure (though I am also slightly disappointed there isn't a bit more analysis of that). Cielquiparle ( talk) 07:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk and delete. Lots of dancing around various guidelines as everyone tries to exclude ones (e.g. NBIO, NEVENT, NOTNEWS) that show it doesn't meet our notability criteria and pushing others (e.g. GNG. ?). For me, this topic is the very definition of why WP:NEVENT was written. It was a good prank, that's it. Everyone has already forgotten about it and most who recall the *event* (or prank) wouldn't even remember the names two weeks later anyway. I've !voted for a merge because at best, this might be worthy of a small mention in the overall Acquisition by Musk topic. That's not to say that I think the entire article should be merged, I'd be happy with a two sentence summary to say that two guys pranked the media after the layoffs and the media ran with the story without checking any of what they had said. HighKing ++ 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's a joke. It got a lot of attention. It's not Flying Spaghetti Monster level of attention, but it's still enough to meet the GNG and no part of NOT applies. Jclemens ( talk) 05:28, 3 January 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. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 02:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Matthew Worley


Matthew Worley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Music, Politics, and England. AllyD ( talk) 09:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: As a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, he appears to pass WP:NPROF#C3. Additionally, a cursory search revealed reviews of some of his works: [34] [35] [36] [37]. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I'd keep him; disclosure, I'm currently in the middle of a massive bust-up with the academic community about the laxness of sourcing in articles about academics, but his article is a lot better than many. More informative and better sourced. Enough to satisfy WP:NPROF, and to be useful to the reader. Elemimele ( talk) 19:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many published book reviews listed in the article. I think the standards for FRHS [38] are too lax for it to count for WP:PROF#C3. #C8 (founding a notable journal) also looks possible, though. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Confederation of Independent Football Associations. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Canton Ticino football team

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

No evidence of any notability, sources are passing mentions (literally, just being named in a list of other such novelty teams) and one primary source. No better sources found online. Fram ( talk) 08:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to CONIFA per GiantSnowman is "ok" (since redirects are "cheap"), although IRL the actual name of the organisation appears to be "Canton Ticino FA". In any case, it's not a !keep, as there isn't enough coverage per WP:GNG at this time. Cielquiparle ( talk) 13:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal

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

Fails WP:GNG and does not pass any WP:BIO criteria ChunnuBhai ( talk) 08:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete art collector with his name, I find a few references discussing cases he's litigated, but nothing about the person. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Tohono Oʼodham Indian Reservation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Sweetwater, Pima County, Arizona

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

Another searching nightmare, in this case caused by a bunch of other "Sweetwater" places further east. They aen't this place, though, and it's not evident that there's any connection between any of them. I couldn't find anything specifically about this place except what I could get from topos and aerials: they show a rough cluster of buildings that appear in the photos to be buildings of a single establishment. Eventually they all go away, leaving no trace of whatever it was. Mangoe ( talk) 06:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak keep for now I found this and some mentions on sites devoted to hiking trails. Possibly something notable there. Not going to get excited if someone takes a better look and decides it isn't notable after all. Elinruby ( talk) 08:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Followup: It is part of the Gila River Indian Community and it seems worth looking at whether any of the local history and/or border issues took place in this specific community. I'd suggest a look at Google Books or JStor, which I cannot do right now Elinruby ( talk) 08:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I hate to rain on this parade because I am in the middle of searching for sources myself, but Sweetwater Wetlands are in Tucson, about 100 miles east of the location under discussion. See the map in this book for instance. It is also marked on gmaps. Spinning Spark 09:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hmm. I did wonder about that, but it's the same county, so... But your map trumps my map because it's a book, and it shows it north of Tucson not west. So ok, you're right. But my weak keep stands based on the Gila River Indian Community article. It might still not be enough, but it:s worth a look Elinruby ( talk) 04:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. This book listing triangulation points in Arizona lists one called Sweetwater, located 1.5 miles northwest of an Indian village of the same name. Assuming that the GNIS derived coords are pointing to the triangulation point, there is indeed a small collection of buildings about 1.5 miles southeast of it. Shown here on gmaps. Spinning Spark 10:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply

*Merge with Sweetwater, Pinal County, Arizona, which would improve both articles. Prefer an article title that does not mention the county since, if it is part of the Gila River community, it would afaik technically be theoretically autonomous not part of the county -- see recent decision about same sex marriage law and declaration that the community (Gila River) only recognizes its own marriages Elinruby ( talk) 09:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Again, that is not the same place as this article, off by 100 miles or so again. Click through on the coordinates at the top of the page and you will easily see this. The place under discussion is near the Mexican border a few miles east of Organ Pipe Cactus monument. The location also ties in exactly with the source I found. You may be right though, about it not being part of the county. It lies within the Tohono Oʼodham Indian Reservation which could be a merge target. Spinning Spark 10:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply
How embarrassing. In my own defense, I am pretty sure this is one of these "places in Arizona that might be inhabited" articles that gave me nonsense when I clicked the coordinates. (I'm on a phone). Ahem. Ok... Let's say you are right about that: if it is within the boundaries of delimited indigenous land, then the same should apply to the Tohono O'odham. Sovereignty is a principle of Native American law. It would definitely be a more meaningful target than the county, and somewhat more informative than a stand-alone infobox. I'll strike the merge vote now (blush). Elinruby ( talk) 11:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply
No problem, I've made similar mistakes in the past myself, which taught me to be more careful. Just realised that my link to gmaps for the actual village was broken, but now fixed. Here it is again for reference. Spinning Spark 15:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Tohono Oʼodham Indian Reservation. I believe that Spinningspark has found this community. This AZ Dept of Health Services doc is a list of Indian communities in Arizona (there is another Sweetwater in Pinal County). This Sweetwater is one of about 80 Tohono Oʼodham villages. I don't see that there is enough info to write much of an article on most of them (beyond what is currently in this sub-stub). The reservation article has a list of 13 communities. That list should be expanded to include them all, and each of the villages redirect there, except for any for which there is sourcing to create a decent article, like Santa Rosa, Arizona which at 671 is the largest of them all. The rest should be covered in the reservation article, with whatever basic information is available, like coords, GNIS ID, and elevation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB ( talk • contribs) 06:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm happy to facilitate a Merge but there needs to be a consensus on what the target article would be. I would like to see more agreement here before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

NaijaRugged

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

Removed PROD (didn't technically meet A7 criteria), hence XfDing. Evidently non-notable website. PK650 ( talk) 05:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Touhfat Mouhtare

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

Subject has written a novel, but that alone is insufficient to meet the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 05:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep there are additional sources of her on the internet written in French, possibly enough to push the article into notable territory. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  1. https://www.lemonde.fr/livres/article/2022/10/14/le-feu-du-milieu-de-touhfat-mouhtare-toutes-les-vies-qui-se-puissent-vivre_6145872_3260.html
  2. https://aflit.arts.uwa.edu.au/mouhtare_ames.html
I made some improvements to the article so make that clearer. CT55555( talk) 15:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mediacorp. I'm going to do a rare IAR and ask that if there is any relevant content, it be Merged as an ATD. If there is none, then this article should be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Seven Princesses of Mediacorp

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

Non-notable grouping of actresses; only RS I could find grouping the actresses in this way is the referenced zaobao article. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 12:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Princesses, an AfD for the same topic under a slightly different title. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 12:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with nom, I can't find any sources that uses this term. Didn't catch on as a media term. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Singapore. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The correct Chinese term is "新传媒七公主" and not just "七公主". A search on NewspaperSG, Singapore's newspaper archive indicate 34 hits with the full name. From the preview of the search results, "七公主" is a viable term for searching but would get multiple non-related results. Based on the "catchphrase" starting since 2006 to 2011, there are about 700 to 800 results which if you remove the possible unrelated results at say 50%, it is a substantial amount of coverage. Note that searching in English would probably yield very little results as article title is translated from Chinese. Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 02:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Updated the article with sources in 2011 and 2017. Note that there are constant references of "七公主" when one of the seven actresses are mentioned but as a passing reference. Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 03:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
All of the sources are from Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao (Zaobao and Wanbao literally meaning morning and evening paper respectively). Per WP:MULTSOURCES I would argue they don’t constitute multiple independent sources that would establish notability. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 04:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Moreover, I would guess that most of these results are merely passing mentions (though it is hard to tell for sure, since the full articles are not available online). Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 04:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The news items should be available online via Newslink, accessible with a NLB account from home ( https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/main/Browse?browseBy=type&filter=10&page=2). Even if they are not online, they can be accessed via microfilm at the National Library building (level 11?) at Bugis. But prior to access and assessment, how about WP:AGF and not guess the content? – robertsky ( talk) 09:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
What a novel interpretation of WP:MULTSOURCES, but no. WP:MULTSOURCES is not about news being published by different newspapers under the same publisher. Rather, it is addressing the republication of a news article by a news organisation across multiple newspapers owned by one or many publishers.
All I see is that you are trying to argue that both papers are not independent of each other and thus can be considered as one paper on basis of being named similarly. You have not presented any evidence of that yet.
For all intents and purposes, the two newspapers, Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao, were created under one company after a merger of two newspapers, Nanyang and Sin Chew, when their HQs in Malaysia decided call it quits in Singapore for various reasons, all these before SPH was formed. The two papers retained much of their respective newsroom staff and had separate operations. The name, Lianhe, is a shortened name for their combined names, but like all name changes, the long name had lost relevance over time even though underneath it all, the morning paper could be Nanyang papers, and evening Sin Chew (or vice versa). Although the two companies will merge into a corporate sense, their editorial, publication, and related activities will be conducted seperately under their respective editorial and production teaams ( Details of Nanyang, Sin Chew merger (Business Times, 21 April 1982)).
In a fashion, Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao were both independent papers sharing the same financial operations, that's before being merged into a single paper after the SPH CLG was established in 2021. Unless there are indications/evidence that the newsroom operations were being combined over time under the old SPH, and any cross publications of news items were as a result of being a combined newsroom, rather than syndication, we should consider them as separate independent sources.
The question on the independence of the two papers should be examined and argued in depth at WP:RSN rather than at here, as it will and can have a project-wide repurcussion on existing and new articles that rely only/largely on this two newspapers as sources. Additionally, your intepretation of WP:MULTSOURCES if is to stand, will see that news published in NBC News, MSNBC, CNBC, and UK's Sky News as one source (Comcast), The Times, Dow Jones, The Wall Street Journal, The Sun, Herald Sun as one source (News Corp.), etc. – robertsky ( talk) 09:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Mediacorp: No long term significance. As it currently stands, this alongside 8 Dukes of Caldecott Hill were akin to marketing efforts in the early 2000s. Mentions of these terms have largely fizzled out with occasionally mentions of what these (ex-)artistes are up to. Unless there is a substantial increase in content along the lines of Five Tiger Generals of TVB, this can be merged into Mediacorp and/or create another article with its celebrity management agency as the topic (provided there're enough sources to write one. i.e. like ABS-CBN's Star Magic). – robertsky ( talk) 07:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 05:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No redirect either. This is pure WP:PROMO content and a plain WP:ADVERT, something that has been unusually endemic with the Mediacorp and TVB channels. If this was Nine Network, the BBC, or CBS doing this we would've WP:TNT'ed this under the same rationale a decade ago. And feel free to bring up more Tiger Beat-like sludge like Five Tiger Generals of TVB. Nate • ( chatter) 20:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. It's clear the consensus is to Keep this article but it still could use some editing attention. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Mortar, Bihar

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

I think that the article Mortar, Bihar should be deleted because it does not indicate its specialty or NOTABILITY. Mortar is a village, and there are many other villages that do not have articles. Mast303 ( talk) 04:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I believe you are looking at this the wrong way. There are many villages that don't have pages on them simply because they haven't been created yet, not because they are not notable. Usually, all locations recognized as places/subdivisions by countries are considered notable. See "Populated, legally recognized places" in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places. Capsulecap ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Discussion page was created without the {{ afd2}} template. Fixed now. @ Mast303: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. -- Finngall talk 17:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bihar. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The nomination is obviously incorrect, per the above, but can anyone find sources for this? Neither the national census nor the Begusarai site seems to list this village under this spelling. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I've changed the coordinates (see Talk page for explanation [ [40]]. The village is named in a list derived from the Indian census. However, the link I was putting in to support this is Wikipedia blacklisted for some reason. (Google and my browser have no link warnings). There's also problems accessing the official census website. Still, on the assumption the source is reliable, Mortar is a populated, legally recognised place and notability is presumed under WP:GEOLAND. Rupples ( talk) 22:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    I have no problem accessing the official census website, but it doesn't have an entry for Mortar, as I showed above. Do you have a better source than Google Maps, which is often inaccurate? You can enter a blacklisted site here in slightly obfuscated form so that it doesn't try to create a link. Phil Bridger ( talk) 22:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hi @ Phil Bridger. Firefox is rejecting your link with this warning [41]. Here's an obfuscated form of the link I was going to include: villageinfo.in/bihar/begusarai/garhpura/mortar Rupples ( talk) 00:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Strange. Firefox 108.0.1 for Linux displays it for me. I note that villageinfo.in comes with a disclaimer at villageinfo.in/terms that says:

    This website is a privately maintained site and does not have any official connection or affiliation whatsoever to government related organizations, or to the Government of India, nor is it endorsed or supported by any of them in any way.
    The contents of this Website are based on information generally available to the public from sources believed to be reliable. No representation is made that it is timely, accurate or complete. We have taken due care and caution in compilation of data as this has been obtained from various sources including which it considers reliable and first hand. However, we do not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of any information. The information herein, together with all estimates and forecasts, can change without notice.

    Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes. Your search briefly 'came on' and I could see your no results before Firefox shut it down again. Weird! I was able to access the site via a different Wikipedia page and searched for Mortar in the box towards the bottom of the following page after ticking "Village" [42]. The population was given as 1,817 with a link to an Excel doc, which I haven't clicked on. Rupples ( talk) 20:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Using Garhpura as the search term is of help in proving a village named Mortar exists but doesn't assist with its exact location. Got to [43] - Mortar is named in the snippet view on page 156. Type Mortar in the search box at the top. Page 122 pops up for Mortar and shows population, area etc. Rupples ( talk) 17:40, 1 January 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. Discounting socks and those with a COI, there is a clear consensus that, right now, SIGCOV of this film doesn't exist and therefore, the article should be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Young Hunters: The Beast of Bevendean

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

The director's page, which was a suitable redirect target was just deleted. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

The purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film is to provide comprehensive and detailed articles on Wikipedia about topics related to films. This article falls within that. It has recently been requested that this article be improved - which it has been. References and citations for this article have increased 150% from reliable sources. One contributor deleted, or prosed for deletion several times, but has not justified this current proposal. Time is best spent improving articles rather than deleting them. Suedeakin01 ( talk) 10:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a database, and the film fails both GNG and NFILM. The first source is a database, the second is Amazon, the third source is not WP:SIGCOV, the fourth is probably not RS, and the fifth might be SIGCOV, but is not nearly enough on its own. I could not find any reviews in RS. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 11:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Yes Wikipedia is not a database, no one said it was. It is an encyclopaedia for the benefit of the public. Removing an article is not the way to proceed. As it does not help the users of Wikipedia. I disagree with your assessment of RS as two press articles relate directly to the film's production. Suedeakin01 ( talk) 13:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    The film does pass WP: GNG and NFILM as it is both noteworthy, and the references used are from reliable and significant sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suedeakin01 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    I disagree that the The Argus source is significant. The article is only about 180 words long. A large portion of the article is made up of quotes from the director and some background information of the director. It is hardly significant coverage. As for the argument that the article is helpful, see WP:ITSUSEFUL. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 14:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    The article has a number of citations and references at the moment. 5 references at the current time. There are 1000s of Articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film with fewer (some far fewer) references. Some of these articles were created by the user who has recommended this page for deletion. Deleting an article doesn't help anyone I'm afraid. Suedeakin01 ( talk) 14:16, 31 December 2022
    The number of sources is irrelevant. One is Amazon, one is a database, and one is non-RS, and of the last two, one is not SIGCOV. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSHELPFUL. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 00:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is your opinion. Radio Times is not a 'Database'. The news articles are SIGCOV. The other source is a RS. If Amazon is not considered reliable source than this can be replaced. But no reason for deletion of this article. Suedeakin01 ( talk) 17:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Again, while RadioTimes is not a database, the first source is just a listing, which is not SIGCOV. The Argus article is far too short to be considered SIGCOV. Even if visionary-thinking.net is reliable, the article is merely a plot summary. The new source you added is merely a cast list. The only possibly SIGCOV source would be the last. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 00:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Radio Times reference confirms facts mentioned in the article i.e. cast and crew etc. That is it's purpose. RE: The Argus you seem to be against the news article because of it's length, which is irrelevant. It confirms information stated in the article - which is the purpose of the citation. Suedeakin01 ( talk) 14:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    I never said that the RadioTimes reference could not be used, I only stated that it does not count towards notability. The length of an article does determine if the article counts as SIGCOV. Again, I never said that The Argus source could not be used, just that it does not count towards notability as it is not SIGCOV. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 14:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is an article about a noteworthy children's film. It passes NFILM and is reasonably well referenced. It could be improved with further detail on 'plot' perhaps and a section on the film's reception. There is enough coverage to meet wiki WP:GNG Capulet1 ( talk) 16:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    There can't be a reception section if reviews in RS don't exist. The article is not reasonably well referenced. The first source is a database, the second is Amazon, the third source is not WP:SIGCOV, the fourth is probably not RS, and the fifth might be SIGCOV, but is not nearly enough on its own. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The best sources are the ones from The Argus and Brighton and Hove Independent. These are both local interest stories from newspapers in the director's hometown. Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Jfire ( talk) 04:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Regarding Wikipedia:Notability then the following must be satisfied; "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources  "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources" ie secondary, & "Independent of the subject", criteria which both of the newspapers you mention meet. WP:GNG says nothing about being a regional publication - all printed newspapers are regional. Actually on the internet, they are not even regional - they are international. It is a notable film so does meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) Suedeakin01 ( talk) 14:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep JayShurey This is a notable children's film, and the sources are reliable ( talk) 14:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Note that this user likely has a conflict of interest, as Jay Shurey is credited as a producer of this film. Jfire ( talk) 03:45, 3 January 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Junction 56 Distillery

Junction 56 Distillery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Distillery doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage in independent, non-local sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Boma Akpore

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

Article about a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Only known for being a housemate in the Big Brother Season 6. A show they fail to win. The subject also appeared in minor movie roles. — Nnadigoodluck ███ 00:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply


  • Keep Good morning. Wikipedia is built on citations from independent sources and good faith i.e believing in rhe judgement of your fellow Wikipedians. And because you have no interest in a topic doesn't mean it isn't notable.
Some Wikipedia pages are more significant than others. Not all Wikipedia pages can be about characters as profound as Adolf Hitler or Barack Obama. However saying a page isn't notable, just because it is not as notable as some others is fallacy.
Here are Credible media houses (that are Blue linked) citing what roles he played in a movie that someone he has the guts to call irrelevant.
Put the page up for improvement and not deletion because thats the best course of action. If we really want to work, in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about, we should all be improving pages, not deleting them
Bella Naija, [1] Daily Post (Nigeria), [2] P.M. News, [3] and The Guardian (Nigeria) [4] And all these were even before he went to Big Brother Naija.
The subject not winning Big Brother Naija doesn't make him non notable. As a matter of fact,most past winners of Big Brother Naija winners have gone into oblivion after winning. From Katung Aduwak, Miracle Igbokwe, Whitemoney.

References

  1. ^ "Life Before #BBNaija: From Hollywood to Nollywood, Boma Has Worked With Some of Your Fave Celebs". Bella Naija. 2021-07-28. Retrieved 2022-07-04.
  2. ^ Olowolagba, Fikayo (2021-07-25). "BBNaija Season 6: Boma Starred In 'Blacklist', Already A Star – Nigerians React". Daily Post (Nigeria). Retrieved 2022-07-03.
  3. ^ "Boma Akpore BBNaija Housemate Already A Hollywood Star". P.M. News. 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-05.
  4. ^ Diamond, Maria (2020-08-29). "Boma Akpore BBNaija Housemate Already A Hollywood Star". The Guardian (Nigeria). Retrieved 2022-07-05.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaekuma ( talk • contribs) 9:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Did you actually read those articles WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO or you're just brandishing links for the sake of it. What I'm expecting is that the page be put up for improvement, because saying the subject isn't notable is fallacy. But there is room for improvement
A Wikipedia rule also says that if you don't know much about something, its okay to leave it the way it is. If you don't have a full grasp on Nigerian stuff, then it is not a must you deliberate on it sir. Amaekuma ( talk) 23:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Stating that other experienced Wikipedia editors are brandishing links for the sake of it and commenting that A Wikipedia rule also says that if you don't know much about something, its okay to leave it the way it is is inaccurate. Contrary to your previous comments, no editor is comparing the notability of this in contrast to other articles, so I'm unsure where you got this part from. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The sources are routine announcements, interviews, and mentions that fail WP:SIGCOV, as per WP:GNG, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources, which is the case here. The roles are minor and also fails WP:NACTOR, I could not find WP:SIGCOV-meeting sources per my BEFORE. VickKiang (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Municipalities of Brazil. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

List of municipalities of Brazil

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

I don't see any use in this article. Not only does this page have an excessive amount of bytes, it also comprises of primarily redundant information which is viewable by going to the pages List of municipalities in blank, in which it has every municipality by state. It serves no purpose, and perhaps at the very least be turned into a redirect into Municipalities of Brazil where the lists of municipalities of brazil are shown. Something should be done about this article, anyways. MrMeAndMrMe Let's talk 00:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_27&oldid=1131381326"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE