Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 04 September 06 >

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 merge‎ to List of Bernice Summerfield characters#Jason Kane. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Jason Kane (Doctor Who)

AfDs for this article:
Jason Kane (Doctor Who) (  | 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 spin-off character from Doctor Who. While relevant in universe, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage beyond that. A search yielded little to no good results. Not sure what a possible AtD would be, since he's not currently listed at the Companions article, and the book he debuted in, Death in Diplomacy, is currently a Stub article, so that's up to debate. Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a consensus to Redirect/Merge this article but 3 different target articles have been suggested. This discussion can't be closed until there is more consensus on that aspect of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same relisting comment. Could participants return and settle on one Redirect/Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hydronium, we need to get to ONE redirect, please do not add more suggestions. Otherwise, this discussion will close as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
List of Bernice Summerfield characters#Jason Kane > Bernice Summerfield (as one of her major side characters) > Virgin New Adventures (majority of his appearances are in Big Finish works after the NA ended) > retention as article. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 04:21, 6 September 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 Priest, Politician, Collaborator. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

James Mace Ward

James Mace Ward (  | 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 cam across this during new page patrol - it was a redirect until July 28. I prodded the article on August 21 because the person does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. I had some discussion with the original redirect creator on my talk page. But since the prod was removed no work has been done to show notability. I am putting it here so that the community can determine if the person is notable. Lightburst ( talk) 00:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Lightburst ( talk) 00:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, Slovakia, and Rhode Island. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. His book Priest, Politician, Collaborator is notable and is the subject of a Wikipedia article which includes several reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. His dissertation No saint: Jozef Tiso, 1887–1947 ISBN  9780549622673 may also be of interest. "No saint: Jozef Tiso, 1887–1947". uri-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com. Retrieved 2023-08-30. Google Scholar lists several publications with some citations, but I don't know how good the citation numbers are for a historian or how relevant various metrics are. Perhaps the reception of his book and his journal articles is enough to pass notability as an author and as an academic. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge clear WP:NAUTHOR pass due to book reviews. In addition, the actual creator of the article hasn't been notified since it was written over a redirect. ( t · c) buidhe 01:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks @ Buidhe:. You were notified because you started the page as a redirect. And your comment that this was "written" is a stretch. It is a stub with 57 words and three words are his name and 13 are about the book. This book has an article which you also started (only 33 words so there is room) so your idea of a merge or original idea of redirect makes sense. If there is information to create a biography in the future it can be converted. Lightburst ( talk) 02:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Please count the words once more. Xx236 ( talk) 07:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the notable book, our usual solution to someone with only one book but one that is notable. He doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF and I don't think one book is enough for WP:AUTHOR, but redirects are cheap. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Ward's paper is mentioned in Wartime collaboration, I have added such information. So the reidirect is not enough.
If stubs are wrong, let's remove all of them, perhaps one million. Why this exactly? Xx236 ( talk) 07:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge where appropriate and redirect to Priest, Politician, Collaborator. I have to say I'm a bit confused with the "keep" !votes here. The subject, quite clearly in my opinion, fails NAUTHOR and NPROF and I haven't seen any evidence of where it could be improved to bring to that standard. - Skipple ☎ 12:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect as is usual in the cases of an author with a single notable book. Clearly fails NPROF and NAUTHOR. Its WP:TOOEARLY for a full article on the author. -- hroest 21:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, leaning Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge I'm ok with the merge. TOOEARLY does seem to apply Oaktree b ( talk) 01:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge somehow. The article on the book is a short article, with more space devoted to references than to its text. It is useful to have something on the author of a notable work, but he has apparently done little other than write the book. I therefore wonder whether the better solution may be to keep this article but merge into it the article on the book. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus among editor participants and opinion is so divided, I don't think further relistings would swing opinion strongly in one or the other direction. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Iron horse

Iron horse (  | 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 would do far better on Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bremps ... 00:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is only a single source which explains the meaning of the subject. (The link is now dead.) Other contents on the article are not sourced. 🛧 Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 08:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The article as it stands isn't very good but it's one that feels like it could be expanded to be wiki-notable. SportingFlyer T· C 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. What's there to expand? Move Iron horse (disambiguation) here afterward; the definition there is sufficient. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT, directly broken by the article's description of itself: "Iron horse is an iconic literary term..." Well, we have articles on steam locomotives and steam engines already; if this is about a term, then it belongs on Wiktionary, not here. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (not !voting yet); the article has a mildly interesting history I think, but the title would probably serve better purpose as a disambiguation page for other topics. I will say I'm surprised that there's no mention of "iron horse" on any relevant locomotive articles, as some could be a good fit for a tangential wikilink in the disambiguation page lead. I'm only vaguely familiar with the term, however. Utopes ( talk / cont) 06:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - it is well beyond wiktionary.. and in reality was a very widely used term that had ramifications in the 19th century into the 20th that obvious elude the current 'delete/dictionary' voters. JarrahTree 09:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment the term is used in a fanciful way to describe railways. On the high iron, the iron horse etc. I'd !keep if the article had better sourcing or more inline citations. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I would have to do a bit more research myself, but think there's some interesting info on the page that could be expanded, also quite a few incoming links, and the page hits are not inconsiderable over its lifetime. Some usages (e.g. in book titles, poems, etc.) could be included, as well as its other uses (e.g. representing a bicycle in the novel Things Fall Apart). I can see at least one article ( Iron Horse (board game)) which could probably be merged into this one too. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 08:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and move Iron horse (disambiguation) to target. We all admit that this is a term that was used, but there is no reason we need a page for a particular nickname for trains.. we could easily address this on the locomotive page. I strongly oppose merging articles into this one just because they share a name, as suggested above. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT, Better off at WikiDictionary. Fails NOTDICT and GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 20:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, better in Wikidictionary per others. Nothing here that cannot be dealt with just as well at locomotive.  Mr.choppers |  ✎  02:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep – this is not a dictionary article. There is already a Wiktionary article, here, and it says, and says only (and perhaps too narrowly), that "iron horse" means a "railroad steam locomotive". An accurate description of the Wikipedia article is that it is an article about the origins of the term, and how the term has been used over time. As such, it is an article that one would find not in a dictionary, but in an encyclopedic dictionary, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Indeed, as the article "encyclopedic dictionary" indicates, early major encyclopedias were an evolution of encyclopedic dictionaries. All of this does not mean that the Wikipedia article could not do with some improvement; it could. But the mere fact that it could do with improvement is not a sufficient reason to delete it, particularly now that it is better sourced than when it was nominated for deletion. Bahnfrend ( talk) 06:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a concept and as literary term goes beyond dictionary definition; supported by the refs which satisfy GNG. Djflem ( talk) 16:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Correction: Refs that support trivia desperately trying (and failing) to make the article look better. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. What Bahnfrend wrote is correct.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of generation IV Pokémon. This was a squeaker, but the main problem was the questionable listicles, and other sources. (non-admin closure) JTZegers ( talk) 17:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Lucario

Lucario (  | 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's reception were filled with listicles and such. Most of the sources are about his Smash Bros. reveal and rankings, some of the sources are pretty dead right now. Having won once or twice on Pokemon poll doesn't mean its notable, plus having hard time to find more sigcov per BEFORE. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 21:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I'd argue that what's there is enough to satisfy, though if the discussion leads merge then I'm unopposed to changing my vote. Pokelego999 ( talk) 22:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge to List of generation IV Pokémon. Not seeing any non-plot summary source there that meets WP:SIGCOV. The extensive research for passing mentions is nonetheless valuable and a merge should be carried out. While many articles like this have issues with stand-alone notability, I feel we don't do enough to merge the valuable content from them into relevant lists :( A problem that can be at least rectified one day if history is preserved (SOFTDELETE). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Many of the "listicles" do discuss and/or go into a level of detail about the character. WP:SIGCOV explicitly states that a topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The poll mentioned in the article isn't just any fan poll - "In the Pokémon of the Year poll held by The Pokémon Company, Lucario was voted the most popular Pokémon from Diamond and Pearl, receiving 102,259 votes. It was also the second-most popular Pokémon overall." This result was then covered by RS. If that isn't demonstrative of real-world notability, idk what is. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge as WP:ATD. Most coverage is WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. There isn't much to write about the fan poll other than it happened, and it's not enough WP:SIGCOV to

write a proper article. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge Pokemon articles tend to be vulnerable to AfM/AfD as the article's secondary sources are often used to add trivial commentary, especially where listicle-type articles are used to describe a Pokemon as one of the "best", or "cool". The test seems to be whether secondary sources offer a meaningful and independent perspective outside of the work. Unless notable in themselves, I'm not sure that user-based fan polls add substance in establishing notability. The kind of sourcing we are looking for is the IGN source, which seemed to be promising assessment of the impact, but turns out to only be a sentence in another listicle-type article. Contrast with Snorlax where meaningful secondary commentary has talked about the design of the Pokemon and its impact on popular culture. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 09:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per others JTZegers ( talk) 02:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    WDYM "per others". Keep votes were just ignorong policy and assumed every reliable sources are WP:SIGCOV. This vote wouldn't be counted by closing admin. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 02:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)on reply
    I meant the Pokemon of the Year poll and the sufficient amount of coverage otherwise. JTZegers ( talk) 02:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yeah. Lucario won Pokemon of the year, doesn't mean its WP:SIGCOV. It is just like listicles but reliable. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 03:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There seems to have been a giant crusade against Pokemon articles these past few years, but Lucario was literally the central character of a Pokemon movie, so he's at least more noteworthy than say Growlithe or Farfetch'd. There's tons of real world coverage of Lucario within the article itself ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. If some of the sources are unusable now, that can be fixed through editing and not deleting. We don't need an article on every thousand something Pokemon, but noms such as this lean too far the other direction. The issue Wikipedia had with being another Bulbapedia is long gone.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Being a popular character, doesn't mean its automatically notable. Those listicle sources you showed and one article that talks about its figurine doesn't contribute WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 11:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes they do. GNG explicitly says that the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Your assertions that listicles are automatically not SIGCOV have no basis in policy. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 06:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Perhaps, this might help you know. Wikipedia:Notability (video game characters). GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 10:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Noting the above is an essay and not policy; I think I'd qualify it's less that a cited article is a listicle and more that the secondary sources lend themselves to a trivial discussion and evaluation about the subject matter. Lucario has obviously been mentioned across wide sources in some way, but the depth and relevance of those sources as significant coverage is the issue. For instance, of the sources cited above, [1] briefly discusses Lucario only in the context of its appearance in Smash; [2] evaluates Lucario as "iconic", a "personal favorite" and "instant hit", but there is little discussion of why, which lends itself to an interpretation it is trivial coverage; [3]-[4] are purely descriptive of Lucario products; [5] conveys the outcome of the poll but does not mention Lucario at all; and [6] is a primary source that mentions Lucario once in passing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 23:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be useful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge "Full of listicles" is technically not a valid deletion argument, as listicles are fully admissible as sources, but "full of trivial mentions" is, and that's what describes the sourcing in the article. Listicles are usually trivial coverage and this is no exception, therefore the same issue applies as many fictional subject articles in which the editors assume that any mention, no matter how small, counts towards notability. Most of what I was able to find is simply SEO-style content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 05:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge None of the articles listed above constitute significant coverage of the subject.
  • In the case of this example given above: [7], Lucario isn't even mentioned by the writer at all; the name is only seen once, in passing, on the republished poll results at the bottom of the page.
  • In this example given above: [8], the source is a listicle of the "top 150(!) Pokemon", each entry only getting 3-5 sentences in what clearly constitutes trivial coverage.
  • In this example: [9], Lucario is only mentioned in one sentence: "Yes, it's incredibly difficult! Especially [coming] up with a name [that] is universal here, in the U.S. or Europe, such as Pikachu, Dialga, Palkia, and Lucario." Not only is Lucario not the focal point of the interview, they're not even the focal point of the one sentence they appear in.

Lucario might be the main character of a movie or a popular character in a video game, but the sources provided haven't done a good job of showcasing significant coverage. FlotillaFlotsam ( talk) 03:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Selective Merge I've gone through the article and the Reception section seems to be the only section with sources independent of the subject. (An IGN article was cited in the Concept and creation section. However, the article contains only two full sentences about Lucario and is sourced entirely to the Super Smash Bros. official website-hardly an independent source). In the main Reception section, the vast majority of sources consist of listicle grade articles where large number of Pokémon will be included on a list and get only a few sentences of coverage each. The Merchandise sub-section is supported by a few relatively short articles about specific pieces of Lucario merchandise such as Nanoblocks and Gallery figures; there aren't any sources focusing on Lucario merchandise as a larger category. In summation, there is little in-depth coverage of Lucario from sources independent of Nintendo/Game Freak and what independent sources do exist consist mainly of routine Pokémon-related coverage that contains barely more than a trivial mention about Lucario. It could perhaps be argued that Lucario and the hundreds of other Pokémon that have received similar coverage just barely meet notability requirements. However, I think it's preferable to confine most Pokémon to the lists and reserve stand-alone articles for only the most notable Pokémon than it is to create hundreds of articles on debatably notable Pokémon (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). To this end, I think we can cover our bases here by adding a sentence or two about Super Smash Brothers and Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew to Lucario's entry in the List of generation IV Pokémon article and then redirecting this article there. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 22:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
For those advocating Merge, do you also support the suggestion that the target be List of generation IV Pokémon? Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm fine with that. FlotillaFlotsam ( talk) 01:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, that is the best place to put the information. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:25, 8 September 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 Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Tom Atcheson

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 22:10, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 23:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Cha Jung-sok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 22:03, 5 September 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 Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Spain in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023

Spain in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON for an event being hosted in November. There is no evidence this appearance in this event will be notable until the event is over or closer. I'm also including:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Draftify both as TOOSOON BrigadierG ( talk) 23:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

IndiaFilings.com

IndiaFilings.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)

Not notable, probably an Advertisement by the company. KnightMight ( talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and India. Shellwood ( talk) 16:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I see some reliable sources, such as The Hindu Business Line, The Economic Times, Business Standard India, and The New Indian Express, have covered various facets of the company. -- Mozzcircuit ( talk) 08:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep As well as the sources mentioned by Mozzcircuit, IndiaFilings has also been covered by The Times of India. Some of the sources in the article seem a little promotional/frivolous, especially the paywalled Economic Times articles, but generally I think this company has just about enough significant reliable coverage to warrant an article, unless non-independence of sources can be proven. pinktoebeans (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Times of India source is basically the press release from [10] with some VERY minor changes. If this had been pasted into an article here, it would have been reverted and rev-deleted as a copyright violation. It's published on TOI, but it's just a press release. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
TH NARAYANAN V [11] No depends heavily on voice of founder, doesn't meet SIRS ? ~ ✘ No
Economic Times, Vinay Dwivedi [12] No as above ? ~ ✘ No
New Indian Express, Praveen Kumar [13] No as above ? ~ ✘ No
Economic Times, Maleeva Rebello [14] No as above ? No ✘ No
New Indian Express, "ANI" [15] No WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news No WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news ~ ✘ No
BT, Binu Paul [16] No depends heavily on voice of founder, doesn't meet SIRS ? No ✘ No
Business Standard [17] No heavily dependent on business partner ? No No CORPDEPTH but could be used to add a sentence to DBS Bank § India ✘ No
BW, Resham Suhail [18] No fully an interview with employee ? No ✘ No
Free Press Journal, FPJ Web Desk [19] No WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news No WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news ~ ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if those editors advocating Keep care to respond to the source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete agree with source analysis - all coverage reads as a press release. BrigadierG ( talk) 23:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete based on the source table above. Most of the sources look like press-release stuff. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All PR sourcing, fails ORGIND/NCORP/GNG. HighKing ++ 20:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per source analysis table by Siroxo. Looks PR sourcing.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️) 09:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • {{vd}} based on the source analysis and my review of the sources. Too much fluff, not much actual stuff from an independent secondary source. The original work feels like WP:UPE. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:50, 11 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 01:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mohammad Esmaili

Mohammad Esmaili (  | 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 was an unsourced BLP for many years and eventually deleted via WP:PROD in March 2021, with just this source. A few days ago, on 15 August 2023, it was recreated as a translation from the French Wikipedia, with two obituaries as sources. I am having trouble finding anything further, and I am skeptical that this French translation addresses the notability issue that resulted in the last proposed deletion. The only thing changed was the subject had passed away. Was someone who wasn't notable due to having only one source would suddenly become notable upon his death because he has two obituaries? He may well be notable but the sources are likely to be in Persian. He might even meet WP:MUSICBIO in Iran, although evidence of that is scant. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion was already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option and right now, only the nominator supports Delete. Here's hoping we hear from a few more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as this is looking more and more like No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. My review of the sources doesn't support the idea that the article subject as a "lesser government minister" — rather, they read more like he was a senior employee within the ministry of culture. The sources provided do not appear sufficient to indicate notability. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:31, 11 September 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. ✗ plicit 23:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Alexandre Cerdeira

Alexandre Cerdeira (  | 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 former footballer who had a non-notable journeyman career and which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. I created this article in 2007 before I understood that NSPORTS required significant coverage in reliable sources, and following WP:NSPORTS2022 that is well-established. I attempted to PROD months ago, but an editor reverted on the grounds that many similar articles exist. I've searched for significant coverage in English, Portuguese, Icelandic, Greek and Bulgarian language sources without finding anything helpful (e.g., the Icelandic newspaper archive yields a Fréttir squad listing). Jogurney ( talk) 20:28, 29 August 2023 (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! 21:21, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 23:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Steve Ahlquist

Steve Ahlquist (  | 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)

There's no significant coverage of the Ahlquist in sources truly independent of him and significant coverage appears limited to within the outlets he's worked for and self-published sources. There might have been a considerable coverage in a student paper though. I also want to mention there are indications that the article's creator is very closely related to the article subject. Appears to fail NBIO and GNG Graywalls ( talk) 21:13, 5 September 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. czar 22:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Central European Exchange Program for University Studies

Central European Exchange Program for University Studies (  | 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 spam, notability not established * Pppery * it has begun... 20:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The article fails WP:GNG, and it reads like an advertisement. Several section titles are in uppercase letters as well. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 20:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not a notable enough topic and a very poorly written article. Sgubaldo ( talk) 08:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Europe. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Comes across as a promotional essay and it doesn't appear as though any type of notability criteria has been met. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:35, 6 September 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. ✗ plicit 23:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

News Digest

News Digest (  | 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 news company dating back to 2022 that does not satisfy our WP:NCORP or WP:SIGCOV. Sources are basically primary sources from its website or the web developer and the article has basically turned to listing directory for its staff. Jamiebuba ( talk) 19:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Orange County Public Schools. Liz Read! Talk! 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Horizon High School (Florida)

Horizon High School (Florida) (  | 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)

High schools are not inherently notable. This one, of such a short life, is not. Bedivere ( talk) 18:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Adel Rahman

AfDs for this article:
Adel Rahman (  | 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)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Unable to Prod due to previous AFD. (where it was deleted and has since been recreated) IceBergYYC ( talk) 17:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. IceBergYYC ( talk) 17:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Canada. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I cannot find anything that would put this person past WP:GNG. The teams that Rahman has played for were not considered fully-professional leagues under the now former WP:NFOOTY list of professional leagues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. While all of those notability arguments are largely deprecated, it is difficult to find an argument for notability even under WP:GNG and given the teams that were played for, it is unlikely that sufficient coverage exists, beyond what I have attempted to find but have not found to meet WP:THREE, due to minimal coverage existing of many of these leagues. In absense of anything to push over WP:GNG, it seems best to delete. Tartar Torte 17:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete Plays for a semi-pro league in Canada (I live near the town where he plays and didn't know of it...) Non-notable playing career. Non-notable athlete, delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt not become more notable since the last AFD. He didn't even pass the more lenient football notability guidelines in 2021 (or now either), and he certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Non-notable athlete who only participates in minor football leagues, and it is largely reliant on one source. "www.league1ontario.com" is simply Rahman's profile, and that misses other coverage that the source simply misses. Simply stating statistics for a player is simply not enough for notability. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 12:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nomination Worldiswide ( talk) 11:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Dalit businesses

Dalit businesses (  | 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 article seems to fail WP:GNG and also the topic is not clear. It seems someone created it as test page. Admantine123 ( talk) 17:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It's common garden variety Indospam to promote certain business schemes to a vulnerable caste. No tolerance for this should be had. Nate • ( chatter) 23:56, 5 September 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 Withdrawal. Article was basically saved from what could've been a permastub and the concerns that made me begin the discussion were addressed. ( non-admin closure)‎ Negative MP1 08:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Baldi's Basics in Education and Learning

Baldi's Basics in Education and Learning (  | 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 article used to give the illusion of being notable for having a bunch of unreliable sources caked onto it to justify WP:FANCRUFT. After clearing the garbage, all that remains is only five sources and a WP:PERMASTUB. What are these five sources and what do they have?

  • 1 announces the game is coming to mobile, doesn't say much else except that it was a fad.
  • 2 is just evidence of an Internet fad that died out in months, maybe one paragraph of reception.
  • 3 ...I'm not sure what says, I don't speak German and I don't know about the reliability of Google Translate here.
  • 4 is a developer interview. Usable for development information but nothing really for reception.
  • 5 just says that the game was popular with YouTubers.

None of the sources provided are usable critic reviews (YouTubers do not count) and a search for WP:BEFORE turned up nothing extra. There is also no coverage to cover the games extra versions and the upcoming sequel, which for the subject is key information. This article would be lopsided with being 95% development and gameplay and 5% reception. I almost think it's better not having an article at all due to the lack of coverage, hence why I am nominating it. Negative MP1 16:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Negative MP1 16:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The Kotaku and 4Players easily are good enough sources to determine notability, but I'll list some more sources to boot: Game Design Deep Dive: Horror ISBN  9781000451108 (pg. 85), Automaton review (in Japanese), Pixel (in Polish), and Konbini (in French). Niche but reliable publications in lots of languages for you! Why? I Ask ( talk) 06:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Is there proof these smaller niche places are reliable sources? None are listed in WP:VG/S. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Game Design Deep Dive: Horror may as well fall under the same boat as the Gematsu / Game Developer article (writer also writes for the site). Also, it mentions the word "Baldi" once. As for the others, there is no evidence that Pixel and Konbini are reliable sources, so it is likely safe to not use them in notability related discussions. Also take into consideration the things I pointed out about the lack of new information on the game, which is pretty key for the subject. Negative MP1 18:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Pixel and Konbini both have Wikipedia pages as they are decently known, but non-English, sources. Automaton is published by Active Gaming Media and is decently popular in Japan. Just because they are foreign sources does not mean they are not useable. Why? I Ask ( talk) 20:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    My point isn't the fact they're foreign sources, that was never the point, we have sources like Jeuxvideo that are considered perfectly usable here, it's the fact they're undiscussed here that slightly concerns me. Do the Wikis for those specific languages consider them reliable sources? I'm not saying they're completely unusable, just concerned about their usage for notability. Negative MP1 20:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete This is a borderline case where the sources are surprisingly shallow on independent commentary. Part of the ambiguity is that a WP:BEFORE doesn't yield any other reliable sources in WP:VG/S, so we need to evaluate several sources of variable depth and reliability for what they have to say about the game. The Kotaku articles, when taken together, do offer some brief assessments of the game, and comment on the cultural impact of the game. For the Game Developer article, I disagree with the characterisation that Couture has not provided his own perspective on the game - the article does thoughtfully evaluate the effectiveness of the game's design, but it is mostly a primary interview source. Otherwise, I agree the article's current reliable secondary sources, including the Pocket Gamer and 4Players articles, offer marginal to no evaluative commentary on the game, and mostly read as a description. This sadly seems to also be the case with the suggested sources, particularly Automaton and Pixel, the reliability of which I have no idea. The page on Game Design Deep Dive is not significant coverage of the game in question, but a brief description of the game as an example of its use of a horror narrative device. That leaves very little breadth of independent coverage on this article that isn't a description of the game. I admit that I was surprised this game hasn't received more coverage. Happy to be proven wrong; I think all this article needs is another strong source or two to confidently say this enters general notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 12:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep There's enough significant coverage from reliable sources, IMO. Skyshifter talk 00:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Can you provide three examples? I'm still unsure of where to lean. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 17:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes. [21] [22] [23] are significant coverage about Baldi's Basic, while [24] goes in detail about the development. [25] gives significant coverage to Baldi's Basics Plus, and [26] [27] to Baldi's Basics Classic, which are official versions of the game. [28] gives significant coverage to the game's popularity, which is also relevant. Skyshifter talk 18:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Withdraw I'm still disappointed in the lack of actual critical reception, but it very clearly meets the notability guidelines by this point, which is what this discussion was for. It was also destubbed. I'll close this discussion as a withdrawal soon. Negative MP1 08:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Kuwait Direct Investment Promotion Authority

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

Does not meet the notability requirements; WP:NCORP. Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie ( talk) 12:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 13:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per Ponadura and follow ups. Active agency of a sovereign government with significant international coverage. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 18:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Algozooki

Algozooki (  | 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)

Contested prod. Article creation WP:CoI by the subject's creator. Zero indication of any importance. Complete failure of WP:GNG, WP:WEBHOST and WP:SOAPBOX. A youtube series that averages under 50 views a video is so far from notable it isn't funny. IceBergYYC ( talk) 16:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources, and the sourcing in the article is primary. The article was previously redirected to Algodoo but this show just happens to use the Algodoo software and is otherwise unrelated so I do not support any redirection. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete. This is a prod, borderline G11. There is nothing about this youtube channel(?) online, sourcing is primary... And a wall of plot synopses, longer than the actual "thing" the article is about. Fancruft, it should be on a website for enthusiasts of the channel(?). Again, I can't even really understand what the article talks about before it gives me way too many details... Oaktree b ( talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    50 views a video? I missed that part. I have youtube videos with as many views, I'm nowhere near notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Oh believe me, I tried CSD, Prod, Blank and Redirect. Now we are here. IceBergYYC ( talk) 20:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and United Kingdom. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. 50 views per video is a laughable number that makes this fail even the most lenient of notability guidelines (looking at you, WP:NSPORTS). I've had almost as many people watch me live at some point. Also, I wanna point out that a few IPs have attempted to remove the AfD template from the page. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 07:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I actually PROD'd this earlier after I saw it was added as the "successor" to Bamzooki under the see also section of it's article (since I had edited that page earlier) and I didn't even realize it was still up. There is absolutely nothing going for it, there are likely millions of YouTube channels with more viewers than this. Totalibe ( talk) 23:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Todd Bosley

Todd Bosley (  | 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 mostly listing bit parts in television episodes. WP:BEFORE only turned up mentions/interviews about his role in Little Giants but otherwise there isn't enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 16:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lollipop (Italian band). Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Popstars Remixed

Popstars Remixed (  | 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 since 2009 with no attempts at improvement. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Foreign language sources may exist but did not come up in my search. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 15:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Lollipop (Italian band): The one immediately apparent advantage this article presents is charting, but ItalianCharts.com doesn't list the album (it does support the charting for "Batte Forte" though) and Hung Medien's charts only show the top 20 per week. Without that, the article as is does not support any claims to notability, and my search (also probably limited in regards to Italian-language sources) turned up nothing additional. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 16:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Paul Field (Christian singer). Liz Read! Talk! 16:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Love Between the Lines

Love Between the Lines (  | 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 since 2008 with no attempts at improvement. I could not find significant coverage of any kind. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 15:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Paul Field (Christian singer): Found zero coverage. Would consider WP:A7 eligible. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply

Under Giant Trees

Under Giant Trees (  | 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 since 2015. Fails to meet WP:NALBUM as no WP:SIGCOV exists that I can find. A couple blog posts about it but not enough to prove notability. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 15:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator: Sufficient sourcing exists for notability. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 17:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Found three reviews ( [29] [30] [31]) and two book excerpts discussing the graphic design of the record's packaging ( [32] [33]). With all that, it'd be a short article but not a non-notable one. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 16:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Happy to have been proven wrong! I will have to add archive.org to my WP:BEFORE regimen. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 17:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Scrubs characters#Janitor. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Janitor (Scrubs)

Janitor (Scrubs) (  | 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)

Many sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Scrubs characters#Janitor. Spinixster (chat!) 14:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. ✗ plicit 14:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

GoTo (Indonesian company)

GoTo (Indonesian company) (  | 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:NCORP due to insufficient WP:RS Expressive101 ( talk) 14:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Indonesia. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep for what should be obvious reasons, this is a highly consequential multi-billion dollar company with extensive independent media coverage. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 02:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Company is definitely notable and I think there are definitely reliable sources (such as the article's Bloomberg references) present. Sgubaldo ( talk) 11:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I've check all of the link and their articles, turns out many of them have reliable source like from Fortune, Bloomberg, SCMP, etc. I dont understand the reason why this article is getting deleted? SteamManx ( talk) 23:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - clearly notable after reviewing the article’s refs. In particular, look at the operating numbers in this Fortune article: [35] This company is huge and consequential in a very populous country (Indonesia). — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:24, 8 September 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. ✗ plicit 14:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mahamudra (band)

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

Unsourced since 2020 with not attempts at improvement. Band does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It appears that despite three albums, they were never noticed by the reliable music media. All I can find are typical social media promotions and self-upload sites, and even those are sparse. Being from Israel, it is possible that they could have some coverage in Hebrew, but if so it probably wouldn't be too significant. Also note that searching is tough because you will results related to Mahamudra religious practices. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Zepto

Zepto (  | 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:NCORP. References are routine coverage. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep Talk 14:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep added third-party reliable sources for India's 84th unicorn.-- Curvasingh ( talk) 02:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Agree with the source analysis given. Nothing we can use for notability, I can't find much else to use either. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
This is about the only non-PR source I can find, and it's fluff [36]. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Lets examine the references:
  • Ref 1 [37] Monthly sales double. Press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 2 [38] X of Y article. Attractive place to work. Not independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 3 [39] Raised 100m. Fails [[WP:CORPDEPTH]. Taken straight from the company blog.
  • Ref 4 [40] Raises 200million. Press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Monies raised.
  • Ref 5 [41] Interview with the founders. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 6 [42] From a press-release.
  • Ref 7 [43] More monies raised.
  • Ref 8 [44] Taken from a company report.

Not a single reference here passes WP:NCORP. It is all coming from the company. scope_creep Talk

  • Delete Nothing reliable found, and 'unicorn' is an industry term no normal person will ever know with made-up criteria. Nate • ( chatter) 15:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Clan MacInnes

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

an unsourced stub about an unnotable scottish clan. ltbdl ( talk) 14:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Clearly in need of some work but have you carried out WP:BEFORE? Compared to other clans, info is relatively scant but on a quick search, Ian Grimble has an entry in his "Scottish Clans and Tartans" from 1973 and there's this and this. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 16:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ltbdl ( talk) 14:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on the sources provided by Mutt Lunker. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 14:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The article was gutted three times in the last week for lack of RS with no apparent attempt to improve it with sources. It is appropriately tagged with {{unreferenced}}. Deleting this article does nothing to improve Wikipedia. • Policy-specific objections: It is abundantly clear that WP:BEFORE was not even attempted. B2 (and all of D) per Mutt Lunker and gScholar note below; B3 (wholesale gutting noted above); B6 (there are 336 inbound links); and B4, C1 and C3 (nothing on Talk at all). As a Scottish clan, WP:GNG is incredibly easy to establish with a quick search on gScholar. Note that, when improving the article, some care will need to be taken as many scholars of Clan MacInnes are members of the Clan, either by name or descent, which may make some of them WP:PRIMARY. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Potentially restore this version, tagging it as unreferenced. The account in that version reads to me as a credible account from tradition. I would expect there to be some published sources providing confirmation of some of that. Clan organisation websites are not an ideal source, due to COI and possibly even COPYVIO, but are better than nothing. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:06, 8 September 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. ✗ plicit 14:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mr Indian Hacker

Mr Indian Hacker (  | 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 couldn't find enough significant coverage about him aside from websites focused on YouTube content and gossip sites. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 13:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I don't know enough about any Indian media sites to assess reliability of any of these sources, but 1, 2, or 3 might establish notability. Please feel free to laugh me out of the room if these are all garbage. I'm not surprised most of the sources are focused on YouTubers. Old media scant covers new media. Definitely has SIGCOV, but I'm not able to get a feel for the reputation, editorial policies, or independence of the sites linked. Folly Mox ( talk) 03:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Folly Mox, The first and second sources are from local bio wiki websites that publish everyone's biographies with self-determined random data such as income, date of birth, family, favourite things, and girlfriend information etc. The third source you mentioned is from MetaStory, which takes articles and information from third parties and can't be relied upon, as stated in their own content disclaimer here. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you! Sounds like a delete from me unless someone is able to locate adequate sourcing. Folly Mox ( talk) 05:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. My favourite reference so far is the one from "Nova Scotia Today" [45], on which the fine print notes R.K. Empire, 150″ Ring Road, Near Mawdi Chowkdi, Rajkot 360004, Gujarat, INDIA. Novascotiatoday.com is a member of BotxByte Media Group, India. Wikishovel ( talk) 16:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: not have any reliable source, only gossip stuff Worldiswide ( talk) 03:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per nomination. Idiosincrático ( talk) 03:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
mr Indian Hacker is a big YouTuber who has 3 crore subscribers on YouTube. If you don't know then go to their YouTube channel and watch. And India's number 3 youtuber There must be their Wikipedia page. Please do not delete this page (BRGV) Bhargav Polara ( talk) 04:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Yep, seems pretty silly, but that's the rules 🙃 *gestures helplessly at The Rules* Folly Mox ( talk) 04:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This article has been has been deleted three different times (including once via AfD) under the namespace Dilraj Singh Rawat. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 19:55, 8 September 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. ✗ plicit 14:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Ansar Siman Shahrood F.C.

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

Unsourced since 2013 with no attempts at improvement. Outside of Wikipedia mirrors, I could find no significant coverage outside of listings on betting websites. While it is possible foreign-language sources exist, I have no way of finding or evaluating those. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 13:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawal requested by nominator. (non-admin closure) – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply

List of algal fuel producers

List of algal fuel producers (  | 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)

Wastes reader’s time - they might think from the title that algal fuel is sold commercially Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Lists. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this is a back-to-front list. Algal oil is definitely a hot topic, and it's reasonable to have a list of companies connected with it, but the nominator is correct that the list is only useful if it provides an entry-point to further information. As a list it should contain predominantly blue-links with the odd red-link where an article really ought to be written. As it stands, it's mostly no-links, with locations wiki-linked to make it look as though there's some blue-linking. If we trim out all the entries that don't link to something, there will be so little left that the list is useless. The existing list has some small merit as a starting-point for anyone who wants to write articles about companies that produce algal oil (or said they would). And it is a collection of 64 sources which is a substantial amount of work to track down. I would much rather see this list converted into what it should be, than deleted. Anyone fancy writing a very large number of articles? Elemimele ( talk) 16:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well sustainable aviation fuel is a hot topic, but as I understand it sugar beet is a more likely feedstock as algal fuel was found to be too difficult/expensive. Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on my experience at Articles for deletion/Commercial fusion. I didn't realize how big a field commercial fusion had become - there's more private money going into fusion research this year than government money. Fascinated, I started chipping away at all the unreferenced entries as the AfD went on; I'm proud of the finished product: Commercial fusion. I also became more familiar with out stand-alone lists guideline. Sometimes a list will contain mostly entries that don't merit their own articles. The requirement is that they be still be reliably referenced. This allows reliable coverage without 50+ little marginal articles. If a crummy article appears, we just redirect it to the list.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 20:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I spent some time flagging problematic citations. I'll continue tomorrow. Time permitting, after marking all the existing citations, I'll start searching for better refs. At first glance, some of these seem dinkier and older than the companies on the commercial fusion lists. Some no longer have web sites (I'll delete those) and others have 1990s style main pages. I'm guessing the link will shrink by 50% but we'll see. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 23:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - No policy-based reason is given for this AfD. Wastes reader’s time is a long way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It should have been procedurally closed immediately. Since it wasn't: I don't even like list articles, and I have to admit this is one of the best-sourced to come up for deletion in a while, and it actually passes WP:SELCRIT. It passes WP:NLIST and, if it wasn't a list, would pass WP:GNG as well. There is no valid, policy-based rationale for deletion, and it would not improve Wikipedia to do so. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    My reason "Wastes reader’s time" was not just because I did not like the article but because it was garbage. Now that the article is being improved thanks to A. B. it will hopefully be useful for readers in future. So I hereby withdraw this deletion request. Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I hereby withdraw this deletion request - see above - thanks A. B. Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:05, 7 September 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. ✗ plicit 14:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Behjat Abad Market

Behjat Abad Market (  | 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 since 2013 with no attempts at improvement. The external sources are either WP:PRIMARY or user-editable. My WP:BEFORE search only turned up one potential source but it's short and not enough for WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 13:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Botryococcus braunii. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Biofuel applications of botryococcene

Biofuel applications of botryococcene (  | 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 and uneconomic Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I removed the PROD for purely technical reasons. I agree with Chidgk1's PROD reasoning. Ping me if new information comes up validating this article.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 14:44, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 13:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Johann Weiß (footballer)

Johann Weiß (footballer) (  | 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:SPORTCRIT. Only some marginal sources / name checks in amateur football match reports like [46] or [47], no substantial coverage. Dr. Duh  🩺 ( talk) 12:48, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 13:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Special X

Special X (  | 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 satellite radio channel doesn't have enough coverage and the sources in the article are not reliable, failing WP:GNG. I suppose a redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels is fine. Let'srun ( talk) 11:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Assim Al-Hakeem

Assim Al-Hakeem (  | 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 cleric, possible UPE, article was moved to draft three times by three different editors for improvements but of no use. Tetrainn ( talk) 11:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep: Subject has dozens of book and scholarly paper mentions as a prominent cleric, so passes WP:GNG based on the sheer prevalence of references, regardless of other considerations. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The article was not moved to draft three times by three different editors. It was moved one time by Pbritti, then improved and submitted to AfC and accepted by me. The nominator then moved a second time, which I reverted per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. The accusation of UPE is unsubstantiated and probably should be struck. @ Tetrainn: If you have evidence that someone is engaging in UPE, then follow the instructions in WP:PAID#Reporting undisclosed paid editors and send it to a functionary. –  Joe ( talk) 08:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, an article may only be unilaterally moved to draft space a single time. So the nominator's statement is an admission of violating our draftification procedures. The nominator's own misbehavior is not a valid reason for a deletion nomination. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The cleric itself is notable as his fatwas have already been cited in books and journals. Moreover, he has been on TV, answering many questions about Islam. Hence, I believe that he passed the notability requirement and deserves to have a Wikipedia article. Faldi00 ( talk) 07:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep. From a quick google search I thought notability would be very clear, but I'm not sure any of the RS coverage is significant. Not gonna whack out the sources table. UPE allegations unlikely since coverage is pretty mixed in tone.
I'm guessing there are lots more arabic sources here I'm not getting at. Given that this individual's focus is primarily in producing arabic content for muslims and is relevant enough in that field to be mentioned by BBC and The Guardian, I think it's fair to assume more coverage exists that I'm not able to locate right now. That said, the current article is a puff piece and doesn't adequately represent the extent to which he has been criticised for bigoted views.
BrigadierG ( talk) 12:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:SUSTAINED could also reasonably considered to be fulfilled by the level of diversity and regularity of the subject's coverage. The figure is mentioned frequently and repeatedly. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Essentially, there haven't been any really substantive arguments that give a clear consensus, and after three relists, it's time to bring discussion to a close. However, the article is in very poor shape, so no prejudice against renomination if it is not improved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Joro the Paver

Joro the Paver (  | 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 BLP article with only 2 (quite unreliable) references. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 02:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Law, Europe, and Bulgaria. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 02:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He's a notorious at national level, with few imitators. There are many references in the media (indeed mostly tabloid articles but this is expected) [48] + some book references (among others fiction that is considered modern classics and related literary crticism) [49]. -- Nk ( talk) 06:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Nk: Being famous on a national level is not notability, and I believe that tabloid news should not be taken seriously and aren't reliable sources.
    Per WP:SENSATIONAL: "[Tabloid journalism] is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article." QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 10:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    (BTW, I'm a Bulgarian myself) QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 10:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. And let's remember that crimes committed in Bulgaria in 1968 are unlikely to have substantial online coverage. Not a BLP, incidentally, as the true identity of the perpetrator is uncertain. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Necrothesp:

    [...] crimes committed in Bulgaria in 1968 are unlikely to have substantial online coverage

    Then either find offline sources, find better online sources, or delete this article. And I do believe this is a BLP, just because he's anonymous does not mean he's not a legal entity. (Unless you can find any policy that states otherwise) -- QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    For example, Banksy (an anonymous artist) is considered a living person. I know that Mr. Paver is no longer active, but the crimes were not committed long enough ago for him to be assumed dead. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 15:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    As I said, already meets WP:GNG. We have the BLP rules due to sensitivities about living people. You can't have sensitivities regarding someone who just bears a nickname assigned by someone else. This is not the case with Banksy. We might not know who he is, but he is a specific individual with a specific identity which he adopted himself. An unidentified criminal is a completely different kettle of fish. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more policy-based opinions on this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I don't think this is a BLP when all the biographical information that exists is a nickname for an anonymous person but I'm also not impressed with the sources presented. I'd relist this discussion but I think that would demonstrate an opinion on this closure so I'll just leave a comment. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This would benefit from a source analysis as at the moment we have one editor says the sources are bad and another says they are good. Why?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep look, the article as written needs a lot of work and I wouldn't accept it at AfC (I have a rule where I don't "go outside the references" at AfC to determine notability) but after a source search it's either crystal clear this article can be improved through reliable sources, or I'm entirely failing at understanding which Bulgarian sources are reliable. SportingFlyer T· C 12:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Having looked at the sources, I'm skeptical that the subject of this article warrants inclusion under WP:NEVENT / WP:CRIME (both of which require some sense of being a "well-documented historic event" or "enduring historical significance"/""widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources"). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    The sources in the article are horrible. A WP:BEFORE search clears things up, especially in Cyrillic. SportingFlyer T· C 22:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've done a search, but the sources I've found have had insufficient quality. Would you mind sharing the high-quality sources that you've seen? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Stuff like this is par for the course in Balkan news print. Dnevnik had four hits but all of those articles were paywalled. It was also at least mentioned in this article. I'm not an expert in Bulgarian media and have only spent about three minutes on this so apologies if these aren't the best sources - they're representative. SportingFlyer T· C 21:47, 12 September 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. ✗ plicit 13:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 UPSC Same Roll Scandal

2023 UPSC Same Roll Scandal (  | 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:EVENT. Exam result/certificate forgery is a regular incident in India. Written like a news based on WP:RECENTISM. Per WP:LASTING, "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else". The Doom Patrol ( talk) 09:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Pilar Neira

Pilar Neira (  | 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. No significant coverage can be found. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 00:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Spain. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 00:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep Article has been expanded and a number of sources added. Sources are not plentiful, but in light of the well-reported issue of sexism in Spanish football this is unsurprising. Even if she is not strictly within the WP:NSPORT guideline, as a national team coach, Olympic coach, etc., she has been a trailblazer in women's soccer in Spain. Oblivy ( talk) 01:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep with the new changes and sources. Utopes ( talk / cont) 04:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage on her. Q+A interviews like the La Opinion A Coruna and Xornal sources do not provide sigcov. Dougal18 ( talk) 10:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per Oblivy and Utopes. Clearly significan tfigure in Spanish womens football. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 17:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Das osmnezz: Could you please provide some actual arguments? You do this on every AfD... "per someone else" without defending anything. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 00:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
For example, [50], [51], and [52] all have secondary coverage... Clearly significan tfigure in Spanish womens football THanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 07:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
First source offers little coverage, second source is a primary source (direct Q&A interview), and third source is also a primary source interview. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
They literally a;; have secondary coverage... Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 17:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Daniel Koh

AfDs for this article:
Daniel Koh (  | 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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mr. Koh has received enough press coverage and holds noteworthy office when compared to similar people. Koh is similar to Gina Ortiz Jones. A failed congressional candidate appointed to the Biden administration. MarblePolitics ( talk) 22:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Without looking any further than the article, I see feature articles from the Boston Herald and the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune giving significant coverage to the subject, and it's disquieting to see that those sources were in place when the nomination was made. Given that the nomination was made in a flurry of other edits, if WP:BEFORE was done at all, it was done hastily and sloppily. Just on the basis of those two sources I'd give this a GNG pass -- leaving aside what other sources are out there -- that the subject doesn't meet NPOL is irrelevant. Ravenswing 12:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Never mind that just simply typing "Daniel Koh" + "Boston" into a Google News search also turned up significant coverage in the Boston Globe [53] and shorter pieces in the Boston Business Journal [54], the New York Times [55], Bloomberg Law News [56] and the Andover Townsman [57]. It took me a good bit longer to type all this out than it did to find those sources, and I hope we can trust in the nom's good sense to withdraw this nomination promptly, and to exercise more care with the next AfD. Ravenswing 12:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Is Deputy Cabinet Secretary a notable role for NPOL? I don't think WP:GNG is met based on those sources, since one's a 40 under 40, another is directly on him but is more about finding someone who has ADHD than his own notability (but is clearly the best one), the Bloomberg is what we would describe in the sports world as "routine transactional", the NY Times simply quotes him for an entirely different story, and the Andover Townsman isn't GDPR friendly. SportingFlyer T· C 12:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    You're tossing out the Herald and Eagle-Tribune sources as well? Ravenswing 19:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Herald coverage is speculation he'll run for lieutenant governor, which we typically classify as routine political coverage. The Eagle-Tribune also isn't GDPR friendly (not accessible here). SportingFlyer T· C 00:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    GDPR is the European privacy regulation; the editor is likely in Europe, and rather than comply with the directive, they block access to the site in Europe to avoid issues. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Deputy Cabinet Secretary does not meet NPOL, though obviously this would not preclude him from being notable through GNG. Can you clarify what you mean by GDPR friendly; I'm not sure what this means? Curbon7 ( talk) 21:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Wondering that myself, and whatever it is, what notability guideline explicitly debars it. I also admit this is the first time I've ever seen reference to "routine political coverage" as disqualifying an otherwise valid source from notability; wouldn't that apply to ANY article about ANY politician? Ravenswing 05:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    We typically delete political candidates who may even pass GNG on the grounds that anyone running for office gets a certain level of coverage and typically redirect them to the page of the election they ran for. That's even a step below that - this person might run. Same with low-level elected officials. I'm also not arguing GDPR is disqualifying, just that they're local websites which don't follow GDPR guidelines and so aren't accessible to me. SportingFlyer T· C 09:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Let's try again: to what are you referring when you say "GDPR?" What notability guideline cites it as a valid reason to disqualify a GNG pass? (The only definition of the acronym I can find refers to the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, which can't possibly refer to a United States citizen, and it would be flat out absurd to think it had any connection with a newspaper putting its articles online.) What do you mean by "not accessible here?" I can access those sources just fine, and in any event you're well aware that even being behind a paywall or being offline doesn't disqualify a source.

    With that, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that otherwise reliable, valid sources are disqualified from the GNG (and again, what guideline says so?) if they're concerning a candidate running for public office, and in the next breath concede that they're not concerning a candidacy for public office, but for some reason they're disqualified anyway. Ravenswing 02:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    I am saying I cannot access these sources because American websites do not comply with the GDPR and as such are not accessible in my location. I am not trying to disqualify those specific sources, though they appear to be from very local news publications. One appears to be a "local guy makes good" article from the headline, though. SportingFlyer T· C 07:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    See my above comment about the GDPR. Privacy regulation that most American sites choose not to comply with. We have PIPEDA in Canada that's the same idea; the US doesn't seem to have privacy laws as robust as other areas. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources identified by Ravenswing. @ SportingFlyer: a comment in good faith as you appear unaware: it's not at all hard to get around GDPR restrictions - free VPN services are readily available and more than adequate to check US news sites. FWIW, I don't feel there's community consensus on the application of "routine coverage" here ... there's a lot of devil in that detail and nothing explicit in WP:ROUTINE that includes elections. Coversely, elections almost by definition are routine so it's somewhat contradictory to claim that local election coverage is routine but say, US Presidential election coverage is not...what's significant in determining notability here is scale, not recurrance. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's fine - I was just noting I hadn't seen those articles. But I still stand that he's not notable - what exactly is he notable for? He lost an election where the winner had 18,000 votes, he won a very local election with 2,700 votes, he opted not to run for lieutenant governor. Is he notable because he works in the White House? Is he notable because someone wrote an article discussing his ADHD? Because those are the other two options, unless notability is simply "the local paper wrote one feature article on him."
    We also consistently delete unelected candidates for office for a number of different reasons. We even consistently delete articles on elected mayors who have only received local coverage. The fact any candidate will receive some level of ROUTINE coverage being only one of them. And if this particular article is scale over recurrence, there's no scale here. SportingFlyer T· C 13:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would emphasise the distinction between demonstrating notability through the existence of in depth reliable sourcing and demanding what a subject is notable for. The GNG/BASIC requires the former, not the latter. Asking questions such as "Is he notable because he works in the White House?" is misleading to the extent that the *sources* determine the answer to this, not our opinion of work in the White House. There are plenty of people working in the White House who lack indepth RS coverage, ipso facto, no article. On the other hand, people working in the White House with in depth coverage in multiple RS are notable by our guidelines. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I agree with Goldsztajn that the reason why someone garners enough coverage to meet the GNG does not matter -- the community has consistently declined to limit GNG passes to only those purportedly "worthy" of receiving media coverage.

    With that, c'mon. Yes, articles are deleted all the time of local politicians getting passing mentions in local weekly papers. I strongly disagree that we routinely delete subjects for whom feature articles can be found in Pulitzer Prize-winning publications with continental scope. Ravenswing 11:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Upgrading my comment to a delete. Koh fails WP:NPOL as someone who has only won very hyper-local election, so isn't de facto notable as a politician. The sources identified all have some problem with them.

In the article:

  • Boston Herald article is routine election night coverage for a primary recount;
  • Local election results aren't SIGCOV;
  • Boston Herald article talking about how he might run for lieutenant governor, which he ultimately didn't;
  • His biography from an organisation where he's a member, not secondary or SIGCOV;
  • An ADD blog where he talks about his struggle with ADHD;

In the AfD so far:

  • A Boston Globe article where he talks about his struggle with ADHD;
  • A Bloomberg Law article which is a short biography about how he moved to the White House;
  • A New York Times article where he's simply quoted;
  • His listing in a 40 under 40, which generally isn't considered for notability;

I cannot access sources about how he started marathon running.

On the whole, this looks like SIGCOV, but for what? In order to get him over the GNG line for being a politician you have to combine a feature article about how he has ADHD with an article about he might run for an office he didn't ultimately wind up running for, neither of which are related to the thing he's most wiki-notable for: losing a primary election. He's simply a failed candidate who hasn't made any sort of impact outside of being a failed candidate. SportingFlyer T· C 12:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

"One the whole this looks like SIGCOV" - so that's a pass of the GNG. NPOL is a positive test for inclusion; a subject does not fail NPOL the result of which provides justification for deletion, it simply means the criteria of NPOL are not satisfied for presumption of notability. Not satisfying NPOL does not mean all other criteria we use for assessing notability cannot apply. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 20:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
It's significant coverage of ...the fact he has ADHD? SportingFlyer T· C 20:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Where does the GNG require us to assess what the significant coverage is for? That's a content discussion, not a notability discussion. We have a subject with significant coverage, just because he's a minor political functionary/representative does not exclude him when he meets our notability criteria. NPOL contains presumptive inclusionary criteria, not exclusionary criteria. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, failed candidates getting deleted fall under WP:NOT, where someone can still receive coverage but not being notable enough for the encyclopedia. He's notable for being a failed political candidate. The wrinkle here is that there are two pieces of coverage outside the election which look okay, one talking about how me might run for a race he never ran in, the other profiling him for having ADHD, which wasn't about politics. I simply am applying common sense here and think that those two pieces of coverage aren't enough to make him a "notable" failed candidate. SportingFlyer T· C 14:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I think this discussion shows the challenge of relying on GNG to determine which subjects should receive a stand-alone page. I agree with SportingFlyer that the sources are not that significant - the Boston Herald article about a possible run really doesn't contain much information about the subject (despite the headline) - but if we add the ADDitude piece, I can see how we get to a technical GNG pass. That said, just because a subject may be notable, our guidelines do not require a stand-alone article be created. So, we have a subject that may just pass GNG, but may fail ten-year test of an international encyclopedia. - Enos733 ( talk) 17:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Leaving aside that is neither policy nor guideline, the consequence is nevertheless that deletion is not answer. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
No, WP:NOT is clearly a guideline we use, and there's several prongs of NOT this satisfies. SportingFlyer T· C 14:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
To clarify, I was referring to the ten year test. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 09:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weakest keep. I agree that WP:GNG is probably not a good guideline to apply here. I also don't think WP:NOT applies here to the failed candidacy, because the application of NOT would be NOTNEWS or NOTWHOSWHO, but if this person is notable, it's for multiple things, so these would not apply. For similar reasons BIO1E and BLP1E do not apply.
So the remaining question, I think, is: is this person notable, under WP:BIO as a moderately successful politician who is ADHD?. The politics and ADHD are linked in this only-partially-secondary source [58]. Because of the fact that we would have to rely on this type of source to connect the notable aspects, I'm just not quite sure. I slightly lean keep because WP:BASIC is explicitly flexible in pulling bits of notability from multiple sources, and we have no BLP or V issues, and no other NOT issues either. — siro χ o 07:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Moderately successful is a huge stretch, the only election he's won he won with 3,000 votes. SportingFlyer T· C 18:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. BLP of a politician whose political accomplishments are near zero, now on staff of another politician. We don't need articles like these.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete, deputy cabinet secretary isn't notable from what I can see. I don't really care what the mental health issue the person has, it really has no bearing on notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Chief of staff to the mayor of Boston isn't notable, the person that held his Federal deputy cabinet secretary post doesn't have an article, these combined don't equal notability. High level assistant staffer perhaps in both cases. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I see at least three sources meeting GNG: the cited Herald article, the cited ADHD article, and the Globe article linked by Siroxo. GNG is the controlling policy here regardless of if NPOL is met. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:02, 6 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Tanja Tatomirovic

Tanja Tatomirovic (  | 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:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Seems to be a lady doing her job. scope_creep Talk 09:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Serbia. Shellwood ( talk) 11:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete Resume-like career summary. The only links I find are [59] and [60], an author summary and a Forbes Council page, both of with don't help the PROMO aspect here. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Photo is credited to the LBS Team, which has a marketing feel, thus another red flag. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep Considering there is enough content and enough references backing up the content and advising who she is, she is as relevant as many other articles that have meaningless information and those articles are still on Wikipedia. Боки ✉ 00:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Quantity of references aren't a criteria in notability. Your comment about about other articles, is an argument avoid in WP:AFD. If you have WP:THREE reference that indicate the person is notable, post them up so they can be examined. scope_creep Talk 13:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Scope creep I am not attacking anyone personally but as an example, having bunch of association football profiles for players who play in third tier football and will (probably) never move out of it, for me personally, is waist of Wikipedia space. As @ Oaktree b said, I'd rather see some good articles but it is what it is.
Maybe @ Nikibgd can help us elaborate as to what was the purpose of creating Wiki page other than self promotion on high domain authority website.
Боки ✉ 00:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
no idea why it was created. In fact, Tatomirovic also reached out to the person who created it and that user had no particular reason to create it. Ultimately, I think she's just following her online rep, noticed the page, and decided to make an effort to keep it. Haven't asked why and, considering her already big media exposure in Serbia, not sure how it would benefit her career additionally. Nikibgd ( talk) 12:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
With this response, I am editing my response to delete as it really means nothing and there was no purpose of creating this page. Боки ✉ 23:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Боки: In that case since your changing your !vote, I would score out your keep !vote by enclosng it is <s></s> tags so the closing admin knows you have changed it. I would put a wee note next to it as well explainng it scope_creep Talk 07:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply
for clarity - Tatomirovic doesn't personally know the user who created this page and hadn't been in contact with them until now. Nikibgd ( talk) 12:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is full of meaningless information, but so long as it's well-sourced, it can stay. I wouldn't call most memes noteworthy, but they have articles and can stay. My opinions on the subject don't change how notability works for Wikipedia. I would love to see more articles about human history rather than the latest tik tok fad, but it is what it is. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
It is not well sourced though. We will go through the references. scope_creep Talk 15:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Agree that the first draft was not well-sourced and did not adhere to Wikipedia standards for living person's bio/page. Full disclosure: I know the person about whom this page is through our professional network and she reached out to me - she claims not to have created the page or asked for the page to be created, but would like it cleaned up and to remain. So I took her bio, significantly copyedited, reformatted, and tried to pull as many quality links as I could. Since she's been a PR pro for several major companies, it's difficult to parse what to include and what not to. Tried to keep it simple. Apologies if this throws a wrench in your review of the references, but I'll be around and happy to help remove or add anything that's needed! Nikibgd ( talk) 15:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
No wrenches have been thrown. Being a PR Pro doesn't make you you notable. It is a the most banal and generic article of somebody doing there job. Your just a chancer. We will have a look at the references. scope_creep Talk 03:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah, the original ref sources sucked. And I did a poor job fixing that the first time around. This time, I did much better. In short, Tatomirovic is pretty well known in Belgrade societal and definitely professional circles. I sifted through the hundreds of PR statements she's made for others and have found several interviews in highly regarded Serbian media specifically about her, her book, etc.. I'll go through all of the refs and my rationale in using/keeping them.
Ref 1 [1] Passing mention of Tatomirovic in an old TV report, but thought I'd keep it because the experience of students and journalists under S. Milosevic in Serbia was "interesting" to put it mildly. Also cool with having it removed though.
Ref 2 [2] Link to Tatomirovic's book description on goodreads.com for added info, also cool for having this removed.
Ref 3 [3] Interviews with Tatomirovic about her book in Politika newspapers online version. Politika is the oldest newspaper still being published in the Balkan region and the paper of record in Serbia.
Ref 4 [4] Article in PCPress announcing Tatomirovic joining the Forbes Comms Council. PCPress is one of the most popular monthly magazines in Serbia, established in 1995.
Ref 5 [5] Interview in Pancevo, Serbia local media about Tatomirovic's love of dogs, which I only included as a reference because it mentions details of her private life and that she lives between Serbia and Germany.
Ref 6 [6] Another link from PCPress, this time an interview with Tatomirovic. Only included as reference for fun fact that she had a novel character based on her, although that factoid is also available in the Wikipedia article about the author of said novel, Igor Marojevic.
Removed all potentially PROMO references. Nikibgd ( talk) 21:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
These are even worse that ones you had before. Forbes council is paid for. Anybody can join. Goodreads is social media and is non-rs. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY. Passing mentions can't be used prove notability. She is plainly non-notable. scope_creep Talk 08:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Lets examine the references 1-7
  • Ref 1 [61] Profile and vlog selling herself. It is plain advertisement that any business person would do. It is WP:SPS source. It is WP:PRIMARY.
  • Ref 2 [62] TV news archive. It is a passing mention at best.
  • Ref 3 [63] This the ladies blog. It is WP:SPS source.
  • Ref 4 [64] "The spokeswoman of the Higher Commercial Court in Belgrade, Tanja Tatomirović" Another passing mention and WP:PRIMARY.
  • Ref 5 [65] "Tanja Tatomirović, PR of that company, confirmed for Danas." That is another passing mention. It is WP:PRIMARY even though it is junk.
  • Ref 6 [66] Paid role. I could join. Is non-rs.
  • Ref 7 [67] A story written by Tatomirovic.

There is either primary sources, SPS sources or passing mentions. They are really poor mentions. They are particularly poor and none of it constitutes a claim to notability. scope_creep Talk 03:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Can't argue with most of this. And thanks for reviewing the sources and the clarity on that here. Appreciated your time on this, for real. What I can say is that Tatomirovic, due to her visible roles, is a visible and known figure in Serbian media. Which, as you said, just means she's doing her job well. However, she's also a staple of the Belgrade "scene" and has a novel character based on her. All of this doesn't mean she's notable outside of Serbia. So not sure how that applies to English-language Wikipedia. Anyway, I'll try to dig up two or three more sources from established media that are more than a passing mention and will then leave it up to you guys. Nikibgd ( talk) 12:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I have previous mentioned in this discussion that I know Tatomirovic personally through professional circles, as well as that she reached out to me regarding this article and that I was in touch with her. I believed this to be enough of a COI disclosure and didn't want to take up any more room here. However, @ Scope creep has pointed out that my conflict of interest needs clarification. Here it is.
While I am a communications consultant that gets paid, among other things, for online reputation management consulting, I am NOT being paid to participate in this discussion or to keep this article up.
Have I consulted for Tatomirovic in the past? Yes. Will I be receiving any remuneration from anyone dependent on whether or not this article is removed or kept? Absolutely not.
And because I know Tatomirovic, as previously disclosed, I have refrained from voting keep/delete or expressing any opinions of my own, and am doing my best to simply contribute to the article. Nikibgd ( talk) 09:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete promotional CV-like article, it's not clear why she would be notable enough for Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T· C 12:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The keep !vote above has been turned into a delete !vote by editor Боки. scope_creep Talk 07:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Umbro Cup

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

Unreferenced, does not explain why this event meets WP:GNG. My BEFORE shows some passing mentions but nothing that would help to show how this was significant. An WP:ATD could be a redirect to Umbro, although I cannot suggest any merge given lack of references. This marketing stunt is also not mentioned in the target article, which would be a prerequisite for a redirect... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Japan, Sweden, England, and Brazil. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (Edited:Per added sources from ChrisTheDude) Article is not unreferenced, has external links to YouTube videos which count towards notability and two at the bottom ( [68]). I have a slight problem here with the title, there were in fact multiple different cups sponsored by Umbro, this one might need the year adding to it. As you have results like this ( [69] which shows other Umbro Cup Tournaments.) Also [70], [71], [72], [73], I must admit that results on the web are poor. However I'd expect there will be published WP:OFFLINE materials. Newspaper searches haven't been done here either and I expect that to have results as well. It's not a marketing stunt, it's a rehearsal tournament for UEFA Euro 1996 as stated in the article. So part of your delete nomination is floored in argument. And @ GiantSnowman:, is it possible you can stop posting the same thing over and over again at AfD like some generic bot? It gets tiresome and irksome to see that. Thank you. Govvy ( talk) 09:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • @ Govvy: - I just added half a dozen newspaper sources. There will be lots more but I really need to get back to work...... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 10:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      Lots of match reports from the tournament - where is the significant coverage? Giant Snowman 18:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      Genuine question, what sort of significant coverage can there be of a tournament other than detailed reports of the matches that constitute said tournament? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 18:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep lots of reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest ( talk) 07:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the proposed sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the tournament itself wasn't really that important, but there's easily enough coverage to have an article on it. SportingFlyer T· C 12:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Multiple reliable sources present in the article, this wasn’t any kind of marketing stunt, just your standard sponsorship deal. Similar to the Audi Cup. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 15:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

1985 Azteca 2000 Tournament

1985 Azteca 2000 Tournament (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, does not explain why this event meets WP:GNG. My BEFORE shows some passing mentions but nothing that would help to show how this was significant. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Germany, England, and Mexico. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think it's likely that newspaper articles could be found if anyone has access to the proper databases (and languages), but as an alternative to deletion Merge both this article and 1985 Ciudad de México Cup Tournament to 1986 FIFA World Cup for which these were preparatory events. Jahaza ( talk) 17:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Assuming sources are found to confirm they were prep events, sure. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The games in Mexico City got a lot of coverage, because Italy and England faced off in the immediate aftermath of the Heysel Stadium disaster.
    European Stars and Stripes, 9 June 1985, pg. 24-25, "Brazil, Iraq, Costa Rica remain in World Cup Race," by AP:
    "Aztec Stadium is going through a World Cup rehearsal with a two-week series of soccer matches among Italy, Mexico, West Germany, and England through June 15.
    "Italy defeated England, 2-1, last Thursday amid a wave of concern about crowd violence at soccer matches. Thirty-eight spectators, mostly Italian, died May 29 in rioting at the European Cup Club Championship between Liverpool and Juventus of Turin in Brussels.
    "Eight Mexican fans died May 26 at Aztec Stadium when the crowd stampeded at the National League championship match. The biggest disaster occurred May 11 in Bradford, England, when the soccer stadium caught fire, causing more than 50 deaths.
    "Yet Mexican soccer officials, immersed in the complex preparations for the mammoth 1986 event, say they are convinced Mexican fans will not pose any problems. Mexico hosted the 1970 World Cup and it is remembered as a joyous sports festival." [74]
    Also: Jones, Stuart. "Football: Francis Worried About Safety Of Family." Times, 1 June 1985, p. 32. The Times Digital Archive. [75]. There's several articles just in the UK Times about this trip.
    Reuters, "Soccer Security Tight" 7 June, 1985 [76]
    Vince Leah, "'Kaiser Franz' throws water on hopes," Winnipeg Free Press, 23 June 1985, "Off to Mexico [Germany] went for a pre-World Cup festival and were well-beaten by an English team which had shown little in recent outings.
    "Then Mexico made Beckenbauer sound like a prophet... England went on to lose both to Italy and Mexico in this event..." etc. [77]
    I haven't even looked at German, Italian, or Mexican newspapers. Jahaza ( talk) 03:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Good finds. For now I think we have enough to say redirect and mention this event there, unless there's content there to improve this article? Unfortunately, right now, "Azteca 2000" is not mentioned at 1986 FIFA World Cup at all... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], mention in a book. Come on now, there are loads of hits, more than this. I can't be bothered to put them all down. There are probably newspaper archives I haven't looked at. Sorry, but if I found all of that in 10 min then your WP:BEFORE sucks, if I had a good hour I'd post everything I found. There seems to be a lot of different sources, some talking historically about the tourney, others talking about match histories and history to Mexico 86 World Cup. There is enough to easily pass GNG ( WP:BASIC). @ GiantSnowman: please, don't count your chickens!! :/ (edit: Not to mention you said Unreferenced in your nomination, however there are three external links to YouTube in the report section you have ignored, those count towards notability also. ) Govvy ( talk) 09:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I didn't say it was unreferenced! If you expand the article please ping me and I'll re-review. Giant Snowman 18:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep or merge as above - the article as it exists is horrible but it's definitely a notable topic based on the sources presented here (though not all of the sources definitively show notability). Also would have appeared in Mexican newspapers, not currently listed here... SportingFlyer T· C 13:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per reasons given above. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 15:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - @ GiantSnowman:, Per above. Clearly notable tourmament with many sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Tatar Wikipedia

Tatar Wikipedia (  | 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)

Unnotable wiki citing only primary sources. That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, Asia, Europe, Russia, and Turkey. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not going to copy this comment to all the AfD nominations that are of language wikis, but it feels to me like even if non-notable the information is useful to have on en.wiki. I don't feel strongly about it, but generally I would rather redirect to [ [85]] (if that was possible, idk) than delete. JMWt ( talk) 06:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment I'm not convinced these articles are that useful, but this mass-nomination will be very time consuming, and when you drill down the editor doesn't appear to have followed WP:BEFORE.
    Tatar Wikipedia gets a bunch of Google Scholar hits, mostly as a source of data, but some substantive, for example [86]. Sorani Kurdish Wikipedia, also nominated, is discussed in some news articles, e.g. [87] [88].
    Do we have to let the entire AfD process run on these? Maybe WP:SKCRIT#3 applies ("The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided."? Oblivy ( talk) 07:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It did occur to me that there seems to be a good chance of coverage in non-English media too. JMWt ( talk) 08:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R — siro χ o 06:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I suggested a redirect to the wikimedia page above, I wonder if that might be kept up-to-date more regularly than the one you suggest on en.wiki JMWt ( talk) 08:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Redirect I'm happy with either of the options, probably leaning a bit towards @ Siroxo's proposal as it's a more informative list for the reader. I did a few pageview analyses, and a couple of users search for these language wikis each day so they're not without their audience. Oblivy ( talk) 08:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Redirect is the right choice. No need for a separate article. Athel cb ( talk) 12:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I took a quick look at the Tatar version of this Wikipedia page and checked through the sources cited, of the 8 total listed, 4 of them were from websites that did not appear to be affiliated with Wikipedia, I wasn't able to verify what exactly was said within the articles as I do not speak Tatar nor does the Google Translate extension for translating websites work with the Tatar language (despite the fact that Google Translate does support English to Tatar translations and vice versa) So that is why I would have to say keep it instead and pull sources from the Tatar page. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 14:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I can't help but notice that when one clicks on List of Wikipedias, the very reasonable alternative to deletion offered above, the first thing one is presented with is a banner placed almost a year ago complaining that the article is too long and asking that it be broken up into sub-articles. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've been working on the length for the last several days. It's much better now. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 03:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This looks like the start to a good article. Also, when writing about Wikipedia, using Wikipedia as a source is allowed. As stated in WP:NOTSOURCE:

    An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views and inappropriate self-referencing).

    Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 03:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, thank you, there is a big potential into turning the article into big and good one. Just look at its Russian version to see how it can go. Russian version is more elaborated, but still a way smaller that it deserves to be. It is just a matter of time. Tatar Wikipedia (and Bashkir) are outstanding in a way how it is promoted among "regular" people. There are not many Wikipedias that have support from mass media, state insitutions, including scientific institutions. Tatar Wikipedia (and Bashkir) are viewed as a way to preserve language and culture, and lot of efforts were made into that. BTW, note the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikigrannies that was saved from AFD just today. -- ssr ( talk) 12:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I can tell that the "Keep" votes stem from the fact that the debate is about over an article about an edition of Wikipedia, and like Pokémon, you gotta catch 'em all. — theMainLogan ( t• c) 01:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC) 21:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I said "keep" below but I don't understand your comment. Perhaps you could explain more simply for people like me who have never played Pokemon or read any delete proposals for other language Wikipedias. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems divided between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Bing Translator has Tartar but as far as I know you have to copy/paste the text and manually select Tartar in the drop down list. It translate the first section as "Tatar Wikipedia (lat. tat. Tatar Wikipediase) is the Tatar-language section of Wikipedia. In terms of the number of articles among Wikipedia in Turkic languages, Turkish ranks second only to Wikipedia. It opened on September 15, 2003, and originally operated with only the Latin alphabet. Today, the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets are used in tatar Wikipedia on equal rights. [1] The majority-accepted name of the Tatar language section - "Tatar Wikipedia" - states only the language of writing articles, not that it belongs to any ethnic group or state." Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now as tedious to translate the Tartar version at present. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep immediately. One of the most active participators and promoters of Tatar Wikipedia is Farhad Fatkullin, Wikimedian of the Year 2018. Tatar Wikipedia is one of the most developing, mass-promoted and outstanding language editions of Wikipedia in languages of Russia. There is vast press coverage about it, and also academic coverage can be found. The article is just old and small, it has to be just expanded, not deleted. -- ssr ( talk) 09:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    P. S. I have added more sources -- ssr ( talk) 12:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mauro Montacchiesi

Mauro Montacchiesi (  | 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)

SPA writing under the name of the subject in the biography. Promotional and poor quality article. Molochmeditates ( talk) 04:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Italy. Shellwood ( talk) 08:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Dear Sirs,
    Good morning, everybody.
    I say good morning because, in Italy, it is 04:47 a.m.
    I consider myself a serious person and professional.
    For me, having a page on Wikipedia is an honor and a joy.
    Recently, on my page, I posted some official links.
    These links have all been deleted, and I even read that you want to delete my page.
    Why this prejudice against me?
    Before deleting the links I place, and closing my page, I ask that my links be analyzed and verified for their source and content.
    I understand that they are in Italian and, therefore, can hardly be understood, but there are translators for people of good will.
    I give some paradoxical examples: In the “Biography” section, I had entered:
    https://accademiatiberina.it/cerimonie/198-anno-cerimonia-di-inaugurazione/
    https://accademiatiberina.it/cerimonie/198-anno-rassegna-fotografica/#iLightbox%5Bgallery_image_1%5D/55
    These are the links to the inauguration of the 198th academic year (2010), during which I was awarded the prestigious title of academician. You have deleted everything. Do you want to question the prestigious Tiber Academy?
    In this regard, I also included a Wikipedia link:
    https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accademia_tiberina
    You have also deleted yours.
    Immediately after, you find Giuseppe Gioachino Belli written in blue.
    This link is old; I still need to put it in.
    This is a Wikipedia link:
    /info/en/?search=Giuseppe_Gioachino_Belli
    Doesn't this seem like a paradox?
    This is fine; the one I inserted is not by Wikipedia policy?
    And again, in order not to go on too long, I will mention only three examples of links that you have unilaterally removed:
    https://www.concorsiletterari.net/rassegna-stampa/verbale-ufficiale-di-giuria-le-nove-muse-2023/
    This is a public record officiating the awarding, to me, of a prestigious Critics' Award for the Mauro Montacchiesi book, "The Star on this July Night" (Amazon Publishing).
    https://www.lagazzettadimassaecarrara.it/brevi/dedicato-un-libro-in-lingua-inglese-a-marina-pratici
    This is a newspaper. The Gazzetta of Massa and Carrara
    The article is in Italian, and I cannot translate it because it is printed.
    However, if you read well:
    The volume is entitled "Tribute to the Artist Marina Pratici" and is the work of Mauro Montacchiesi, an Italian poet who lives and works in Rome.
    -
    https://www.accademiapoesiarte.it/2020/10/02/poesia-2020-mauro-montacchiesi/
    https://www.accademiapoesiarte.it/
    This is the International Academy of Signification Poetry and Contemporary Art.
    Look and check well the logos of the sponsorships: Public University Roma Tre, Regione lazio, Roma Capitale, Italian Cultural Institute New York, Municipality of Canale Monterano.
    You have deleted these as well. Why?
    I could give so many more examples, all well-founded and substantiated, of official links that you have deleted.
    Again, I have included details of some books that I published in 2022.
    They are all books with regular ISBNs and deposited at the National Library in Florence.
    The ones that I entered are not good; the earlier ones, which I did not enter, are fine.
    At the top of my page, I read:
    This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
    Since no one is doing this, I try to do it, but I am regularly boycotted.
    I leave it up to you to examine and decide on the case.
    Best regards.
    Mauro Montacchiesi MAURO PAOLO PIETRO ( talk) 03:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Hello!
I have included links from journal articles that concern me, and there are already others that I have not included, but others have.
I have entered several books I published with related ISBNs, and others have not, but other people have.
These are official items found online.
Why do you want to close my page?
Sincerely. MAURO PAOLO PIETRO ( talk) 16:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • @ MAURO PAOLO PIETRO, to answer your questions, we have rules that govern article retention. In particular, refer to the detailed information in these guidelines: WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:COI.
WP:COI: You are not allowed to edit your own biography. This is to protect Wikipedia's integrity against self-interested editing.
WP:BIO: The article has to demonstrate that you are notable as defined by WP:BIO above; you may disagree with those notability criteria but they're the rules of this website.
WP:RS: Any claims this article makes about you have to be backed up with citations to references that meet the WP:RS guideline.
Presently, this article does not meet our notability requirements based on the references in the article.
I'm sure you're a very good poet. If it's any consolation, most of the world's very good poets aren't notable by our rules. They have not gotten the substantial, in-depth coverage required.
Ultimately, notability on Wikipedia is more about vagaries of media coverage by reliable sources than merit. We're an encyclopaedia diligently compiled by a group of amateur volunteers. We're compiling information from around the world for our articles; we're not forming or imposing our own opinions.
I'm sorry I have to tell you this; I know it's a disappointment. Please don't take it personally - this is just a really big website, and we're not poetry experts.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my response to Mr. Montacchiesi above. I'll also note that he does not have an article on the Italian Wikipedia that I could find; there is no it:Mauro Montacchiesi.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Despite the flurry of new editors at this AFD and the improper borderline personal attacks, I see a consensus here to Keep this article which has been subject to extensive editing since this AFD was nominated. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Anita Bobasso

Anita Bobasso (  | 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 significant coverage of subject, even in reliable sources native to subject. No major achievements during career have been presented. Fails WP:NACTOR. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Copying over comments from @ Ragazzodeitalia: at the talk page:

It is a biography of a singer of typical Argentine "tango" songs, very famous in the last century and that can be verified in the dozens of links in her bio, despite the fact that at that time there was no press like there is now... without Yet she had it. after 25 years she died press is still talking about her as this article of 2020 https://www.historiadealagoas.com.br/antonio-hugo-da-silva-o-boemio-maestro-antonio-paurilio.html Please help me so that it is not deleted, I am an old man and I don't know how to do it. very thankful Ragazzodeitalia ( talk) 12:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Gaelan 💬 ✏️ 13:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
ANITA BOBASSO biography SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. there is dozens of external links to archives of newspapers and magazines talking about her in a epoque that press was not plenty. it will be unfair to do it with a famous dead person loved by her public. please help to do not delete it and protect it. thank you very much. Alfredomaraw ( talk) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Anita Bobasso for what I am reading I believe the editor requesting deletion has a personal problem with the subject because there is not reason. This should NOT BE DELETED. I also noticed the subject is from 19 century an merits respect. In her bio there are dozens of verifications to external links archives. All of them mentioning Anita as the "Argentinian star" and everybody agrees that she was a very famous TANGO singer. It will be insulting to remove her. Also, the editor is including the deletion request in everywhere he can obviously showing that there is a problem? Editors should help to this biography do not be deleted. thank you ! Gustavo Ravanes ( talk) 14:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm sympathetic, but the refs aren't great, and she doesn't as yet have a bio on either Spanish or Portuguese wp. Johnbod ( talk) 15:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    thank you Johnbod for being sympathetic with this. Some people does not understand that in the 19 century (even in the early 20 century) there was not press, magazine and newspapers like we have now!! Anita Bobasso was one of the most famous singers of tango as you can see in the dozens of links listed in her biography! they are from archives of course. and yes, there is a biography in spanish ( and in many others she is mentioned ). She was remembered just 3 years ago as the (Anita Bobasso the star of tango that the public asked her to sing over and over again the same song because they loved so much) as you can see in this modern publication of 2020 https://www.historiadealagoas.com.br/antonio-hugo-da-silva-o-boemio-maestro-antonio-paurilio.html
    Regarding a biography, YES, here is one in Spanish: https://ragazzoitaliano25.wixsite.com/anitabobasso
    and she is always mentioned in most press of his famous actor grandson all the time. I would like to protect the bio from malicious people but I am 75 years old and its not easy for me to do it because I do not know much about wikipedia and how to defend myself from people.
    Please help me to respect her memory. Thank you very much in advance. Alfredomaraw ( talk) 18:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you believe that the young person that misrespected anita bobasso asking for deletion of her bio is now having a situation? I cannot believe he posted :"This user is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation."????
    how he will ask to a person from 19 century to have results on google search, books and else?? those did not exist back then!!! enough that this person was working until she was 100 years old!! and still showing in movies links and comments. If we take a look in newspapers archives there are TONES of articles about her!! that should be enough to let her rest in peace...her soul and her public that love and followed her... see in brazil newspapers archives how many articles to read about her: [89] http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/docmulti.aspxbib=%5Bcache%5Ddrummond_4518201294476.DocLstX&pasta=ano%20193&pesq=anita%20bobasso
    i DO NOT KNOW HOW TO REMOVE THAT DELETION REQUEST , BUT IT SHOULD BE DONE BY SOMEBODY THAT KNOWS HOW AND HAVE COMMON SENSE. THANK YOU!! GOD BLESS Antoniobara ( talk) 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm also sympathetic to this article, but inclined to agree there aren't substantial secondary sources. It looks like Bobasso is mentioned in Annuario teatral argentino: enciclopedia de la escena argentina ([ [90]]) in 1926, which may support a notability claim, but I am unable to access the full text to verify. ForsythiaJo ( talk) 18:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
YES! I did not even knew about all those links talking about Anita Bobasso !! Yes, she was also named ( alias) as "Anita del Plata" as you can see in those links because the "Rio de la Plata" (river) in Buenos Aires. That shows how famous she was by the press calling her that way! Anita Bobasso - Anita del Plata,meaning like a queen from Buenos Aires because the TANGO which is the trademark of Argentina and she was one of the most famous ones singing Tangos, that is why her success outside Argentina in Brazil and Europe. Please see all the dozens of links in her biography...there are links to the archives of dozens of newspapers commenting about her. Thank you Forsythia.JO!
this is the link that you just pointed: https://www.google.com/search?q=ANITA+BOBASSO&tbm=bks&hl=en&gl=us&ei=K2_3ZObpHtak5NoP5c24iA4&ved=0ahUKEwimq8bgiJSBAxVWElkFHeUmDuEQsJ4FCAM Alfredomaraw ( talk) 18:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
yes, in addition to the big amount of external links to newspapers archives in her bio, she is mentioned in google books, as Anita Bobasso and the name that her public and the press in that time called her "Anita del Plata" named after the river facing Buenos Aires city. https://books.google.com/books?id=8rIuAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=anita+bobasso
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS BIO. its from 19 century!!! Anita Bobasso please help to keep it and protect it. CAN AN EDITOR PLEASE REMOVE THE DELETION REQUEST? I do not know how to do it. thank you! Gustavo Ravanes ( talk) 19:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES ABOUT ANITA BOBASSOare available in Brazil newspapers archives !!! of course, she is from 19 century...google did not exist back then!! PLEASE SEE [91] http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/docmulti.aspx?bib=%5Bcache%5Ddrummond_4518201294476.DocLstX&pasta=ano%20193&pesq=anita%20bobasso
REMOVE DELETION REQUEST PLEASE. UNFAIR TOTALLY UNFAIR. Antoniobara ( talk) 21:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
KEEP IT. we must remember that the subject is 125 years old, when google search, news, books, etc even internet was not available. still there is a lot to find about this famous tango singer. Anita Bobasso Bio has more than enough external links in the archives of newspapers and magazines that can be accessed on this link: [92]
Please remove the deletion request. thank you! Alfredomaraw ( talk) 00:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
also a year 2020 article mentioning her and saying great things about her: https://www.historiadealagoas.com.br/antonio-hugo-da-silva-o-boemio-maestro-antonio-paurilio.htm
in movies: https://www.lavanguardia.com/peliculas-series/personas/anita-bobasso-3258466
other in movies: https://trakt.tv/people/anita-bobasso?sort=released,asc
other movie: https://www.rikrek.com/sk/osobnost/anita-bobasso/1289342/
http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx bib=572748&pesq=%22ANITA%20BOBASSO%22&pasta=ano%20193&hf=memoria.bn.br&pagfis=39128
AND TONES OF ARTICLES ABOUT ANITA BOBASSO IN BRAZIL NEWSPAPERS ARCHIVES: http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/docmulti.aspx?bib=%5Bcache%5Ddrummond_4518201294476.DocLstX&pasta=ano%20193&pesq=anita%20bobasso
It would be unfair to remove the bio of such a great tango singer!!
what should be removed is the request for "deletion" of this bio. GOOD HEART PEOPLE ACT AND REMOVE IT. Congratulations to whoever has a good heart and does it. This person is dead and cannot defend herself.
anita bobasso Antoniobara ( talk) 21:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • keep Per the Brazil newspaper archive link, and examples like this, it's reasonable to suppose that she was well known and regularly featured in the media of her time. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 21:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    please help to remove the deletion request. the person who requested it now saying this:
    "This user is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation".
    and i do not know how to remove it or how it work.
    I believe the person who did the bio will appreciate it. thank you! 2603:9001:2601:3A8A:28F8:1C31:7F96:1C86 ( talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Stop accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and stop WP:HOUNDing me! I am extremely upset over you and your comrades making ridiculous WP:ASPERSIONS against me in response to this AfD. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Non-English subject in the early 1900's are commonly difficult to find the right sources for, since much of their coverage isn't digitized and is only more easily discoverable by someone in the country of origin. But, with that noted, I still found significant coverage here and here. It's enough for me to say Keep, with work needing to be done on the article to properly shore up and properly represent the available references. Silver seren C 23:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Closer should be aware of the sock activity involved in this AFD deletion discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    *keep Thank you Liz. This is also the link to dozens of articles about "Anita Bobasso", as per the archives of newspapers and magazines back in the 1930's, in most of them she is mentioned as the "Argentina's star". the archive has a search box to search all about her, there are dozens of them.thanks again. [93] http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/093262_02/12359 2603:9001:2601:3A8A:DC26:C67:9701:DD10 ( talk) 11:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    •keep As shown in the Brasilian "colecao digital de jornais e revistas da biblioteca nacional", website: memoria.bn.br ,there are more than enough links to articles in their archive about her. endless... [94] https://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/docmulti.aspx?bib=%5Bcache%5Dcamargo_47752009122866.DocLstX&pasta=ano%20193&pesq=anita%20bobasso Alfredomaraw ( talk) 11:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    •KEEP Anita Bobasso was a very famous tango singer and actress, her bio should be kept in wikipedia. regarding links, there are plenty as per google books she is listed in the Who is Who in the cinema and Spanish Theater" (quien es uien en el cine y teatro español) [95] and in the "annual theater Argentino Enciclopedia of the Argentina scene" (Annuario Teatral Argentino: Enciclopedia de la escena Argentina) [96]. Ragazzodeitalia ( talk) 13:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep since she made a recognizable contribution in a specific field (tango) and her music was featured in a major 1983 Argentine film. She is still mentioned in recent news sources even though she passed away in 1996. For context, she passed 5 years before Wikipedia was even created and she was born in the 19th century (born 1896).
Hiphopsavedmylife ( talk) 19:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

*::keep it pleaseI am fascinated reading the biography of this tango singer Anita Bobasso and the articles linked to it. Obviously her fans loved her. I can understand other languages and I was reading that in one oportunity the public asked her over and over to repeat the same song. beautiful experience, beautiful times back then.≈ Camte45

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Kansas USA#Titleholders. Liz Read! Talk! 17:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Alexis Railsback

AfDs for this article:
Alexis Railsback (  | 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 fails WP:GNG as a beauty pageant winner. Let'srun ( talk) 03:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to the pageant, she isn't notable outside that event. Trump's comments don't help the notability, and being quoted in Newsweek (as a non-RS), doesn't add to the discussion. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:51, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 01:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Miriam Katamanda

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Zambia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 03:15, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 01:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Judith Zulu

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Zambia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 03:12, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 01:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Leadec

Leadec (  | 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)

First time doing AfD process, so sorry for anything I'm doing wrong. This article seems to fail WP:ORG because of a lack of significant coverage. Sources 1,2,3,6,11 are primary sources. Source 4 is an article largely written by the company CEO, which would make it fail independence. Sources 5 and 12 are seemingly press releases authored or co-authored by the company. Source 7 is no longer functional, and has no backup. The remaining sources (8,9,10) all seem okay, but none of them seem to give substantial coverage about Leadec outside of a single acquisition event per source; plus, sources 8 and 9 do not bring the strongest face forward for notability, neither being a nationally- or regionally-significant news source. In addition, a quick search of Leadec turns up no notable incidents which have been widely covered. There are also no easy merges or redirects which can be done, given that no important personnel within the company, nor companies which have acquired or been acquired by Leadec, have Wikipedia pages. Therefore, I believe the article for Leadec should be deleted. Leafy46 ( talk) 02:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Just another note - I also took a look at the German page for the company to see if it could be expanded, and it seems to suffer from the same problems. Specifically, it mostly relies on primary sources, and the other sources are a video which doesn't exist anymore and two online newspaper articles from seemingly small and unnotable sources. Leafy46 ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Illy. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

FrancisFrancis

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

WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NOTCATALOG - Not a single source found from a BEFORE BrigadierG ( talk) 01:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. BrigadierG ( talk) 01:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I can find sources on particular models of their machines, but nothing about the company itself aside from catalogues trying to sell me one of their products. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 01:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to illy, (or just merge). When we remove the catalogue listings at the bottom, we are left with a few lines about the company. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (but maybe a weak keep with redirect/merge as an alternative to deletion) I'm pondering if there'll ever be enough for a standalone article or if it should be merged into Illy, which is surprisingly short to me so it may fit well. Some sources I found: It must've been something I ate: moderate mention/detail of and a positive review in a food book. Longer articles/reviews in newspapers (there are more capsule/short reviews that exist): [97] & [98] (talking about repairing espresso machine using the author's Francis machine), [99] stand alone review, [100] discussion in the context of Italian artistic things and includes mention of FrancisFrancis!'s plate set. Longer reviews: A 300+ word narrative review of a FrancisFrancis! machine. Mentions/minor case studies in text books/business books: [101], [102], [103]. (Passing reference but interesting to me: FrancisFrancis! on the Will and Grace set.) Skynxnex ( talk) 02:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please voice your opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Illy seems to be appropriate as per above Pranesh Ravikumar ( talk) 02:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy. It's a high threshold for a product to warrant its own article, which is not, in my opinion, met in this instance. There is nothing lost by having a redirect to the company page, which is certainly notable. If the product has sufficient discussion in secondary sources, a small sentence would be fine on that page. However, there is nothing of significance I can see regarding this particular machine that makes a merge vote worthwhile or practicable. The contents are largely not worth copying over. — MaxnaCarta  (  💬 •  📝 ) 02:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy, for the reasons given above. The article as it stands needs a citation needed on almost every line, as it is full of unsupported statements. As for the "Interesting facts" section, interesting for whom? Athel cb ( talk) 08:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy as per ATD, totally agree with the reasons provided above. The references are insufficient for GNG/NCORP criteria in any case. HighKing ++ 12:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Danielle Poleschuk

Danielle Poleschuk (  | 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:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only 1 gnews hit and only primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 01:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak delete Not much of anything found [104] has a brief mention. This interview [105]. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
She finished 19th at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics and got some media attention here, but hardly anything. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. All links to ProQuest. I think this individual meets WP:SPORTSBASIC. There's some standard sports interview articles that also confirms background details and provides some depth of secondary coverage [106] [107]. There are dozens of articles with brief coverage about sporting achievements on ProQuest. Third place (podium finish) at a World Cup event, 2010. [108] [109]. Third place finish in Canadian Skiing Championship event [110]. First place in one event at "Pontiac GMC cup" (canadian ski event), 2006, [111], third place in a different event at that cup [112]. Another win in an earlier year [113], third place yet another year [114]. — siro χ o 04:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    The first two links are interviews that contain some background but really don't have the depth to counter the rather routine "human interest" nature of the pieces. All of the other links are to passing mentions in routine event recaps and contribute nothing to notability. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per my argument above. I do not see GNG being met.
JoelleJay ( talk) 16:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per new coverage found.
JoelleJay ( talk) 21:13, 7 September 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! 01:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mir Syed Mohammad Baqir Mosavi Kirmani

Mir Syed Mohammad Baqir Mosavi Kirmani (  | 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)

References are not notable, and the first 2 do not pass WP:V (Google search turns up nothing). The last 2 link to Facebook, not a reliable source. Therefore does not pass WP:GNG - Rich T| C| E-Mail 01:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Ratul Khan

Ratul Khan (  | 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 in-depth coverage. only statistical. hasn't played for a big team either. X ( talk) 00:47, 5 September 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 Sponsorship scandal. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Jean Lafleur

Jean Lafleur (  | 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 issues. Cursory online search reveals coverage was not sustained, and his role in the scandal could probably be merged to Sponsorship scandal Bremps ... 00:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge to the scandal is fine. Brief media coverage at the time, nothing since that I see. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There's also some coverage of his bankruptcy filing about a year after the conviction. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to sponsorship scandal. His role in the scandal itself is relevant and well-sourced enough to be covered in that context, but that isn't and of itself a reason why he would need a standalone BLP as a separate topic from the scandal. Essentially, this is a WP:BLP1E in its current form, but nothing else here is demonstrating independent notability for other reasons outside of said 1E. Bearcat ( talk) 16:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Take on Wall Street

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

One source given. No sustained (or any) coverage found online, failing notability. Bremps ... 00:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete No coverage for whatever this group was at the time (assuming a political lobby, but the article isn't clear). Occupy Wall Street, yes, not this outfit. One whole source doesn't help. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete or possibly a weak Merge. This needs substantially more coverage to be notable, and even then, mentioning them in the article about the Occupy movement is probably sufficient. Cortador ( talk) 13:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guinea. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

David McIlroy

AfDs for this article:
David McIlroy (  | 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)

Last AfD was no consensus. Analysis by Timothy in last AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McIlroy indicates sources are not sufficient. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 00:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. LibStar ( talk) 00:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guinea, I concur with the analysis in the last AfD that the seemingly solid Belfast Telegraph ref is in fact an interview, and thus a primary source. All other sources I could find were either also primary sources or were passing mentions, with the possible exception of this in Africa Intelligence, which is behind a paywall and would not be enough to pass GNG by itself in any case. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guinea. I am in full agreement with the nom's rationale and the past source analysis of the last AfD. Additionally, I also found this but it's, again, a short message from McIlroy leaving office. The find by Devonian Wombat regarding the Africa Intelligence piece is interesting, but McIlroy doesn't seem to be at the heart of the article, so I doubt it can count towards the GNG. I also found this but it's pretty much just McIlroy's parting words. Pilaz ( talk) 14:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Africa. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Egness Tumbare

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

The subject has earned at least seven caps for the Zimbabwe women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Yet again, an American decides to choose to judge us Africans by Western standards. If you want sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, then come and purchase our local newspapers that are printed and sold in the streets of Zimbabwe. Not everything we do is put on the internet. Mangwanani (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I could not find find significant coverage, only social media posts referencing Tumbare. Mangwanani's comment is an understandable frustration but the sourcing here needs to be verifiable. Simply claiming print coverage exists isn't enough - What articles? When were they published? What newspaper? If sources can be shown, I will gladly change my vote. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 16:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 5 September 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_September_5&oldid=1175205723"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 04 September 06 >

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 merge‎ to List of Bernice Summerfield characters#Jason Kane. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Jason Kane (Doctor Who)

AfDs for this article:
Jason Kane (Doctor Who) (  | 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 spin-off character from Doctor Who. While relevant in universe, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage beyond that. A search yielded little to no good results. Not sure what a possible AtD would be, since he's not currently listed at the Companions article, and the book he debuted in, Death in Diplomacy, is currently a Stub article, so that's up to debate. Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a consensus to Redirect/Merge this article but 3 different target articles have been suggested. This discussion can't be closed until there is more consensus on that aspect of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same relisting comment. Could participants return and settle on one Redirect/Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hydronium, we need to get to ONE redirect, please do not add more suggestions. Otherwise, this discussion will close as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
List of Bernice Summerfield characters#Jason Kane > Bernice Summerfield (as one of her major side characters) > Virgin New Adventures (majority of his appearances are in Big Finish works after the NA ended) > retention as article. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 04:21, 6 September 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 Priest, Politician, Collaborator. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

James Mace Ward

James Mace Ward (  | 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 cam across this during new page patrol - it was a redirect until July 28. I prodded the article on August 21 because the person does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. I had some discussion with the original redirect creator on my talk page. But since the prod was removed no work has been done to show notability. I am putting it here so that the community can determine if the person is notable. Lightburst ( talk) 00:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Lightburst ( talk) 00:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, Slovakia, and Rhode Island. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. His book Priest, Politician, Collaborator is notable and is the subject of a Wikipedia article which includes several reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. His dissertation No saint: Jozef Tiso, 1887–1947 ISBN  9780549622673 may also be of interest. "No saint: Jozef Tiso, 1887–1947". uri-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com. Retrieved 2023-08-30. Google Scholar lists several publications with some citations, but I don't know how good the citation numbers are for a historian or how relevant various metrics are. Perhaps the reception of his book and his journal articles is enough to pass notability as an author and as an academic. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge clear WP:NAUTHOR pass due to book reviews. In addition, the actual creator of the article hasn't been notified since it was written over a redirect. ( t · c) buidhe 01:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks @ Buidhe:. You were notified because you started the page as a redirect. And your comment that this was "written" is a stretch. It is a stub with 57 words and three words are his name and 13 are about the book. This book has an article which you also started (only 33 words so there is room) so your idea of a merge or original idea of redirect makes sense. If there is information to create a biography in the future it can be converted. Lightburst ( talk) 02:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Please count the words once more. Xx236 ( talk) 07:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the notable book, our usual solution to someone with only one book but one that is notable. He doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF and I don't think one book is enough for WP:AUTHOR, but redirects are cheap. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Ward's paper is mentioned in Wartime collaboration, I have added such information. So the reidirect is not enough.
If stubs are wrong, let's remove all of them, perhaps one million. Why this exactly? Xx236 ( talk) 07:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge where appropriate and redirect to Priest, Politician, Collaborator. I have to say I'm a bit confused with the "keep" !votes here. The subject, quite clearly in my opinion, fails NAUTHOR and NPROF and I haven't seen any evidence of where it could be improved to bring to that standard. - Skipple ☎ 12:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect as is usual in the cases of an author with a single notable book. Clearly fails NPROF and NAUTHOR. Its WP:TOOEARLY for a full article on the author. -- hroest 21:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, leaning Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge I'm ok with the merge. TOOEARLY does seem to apply Oaktree b ( talk) 01:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge somehow. The article on the book is a short article, with more space devoted to references than to its text. It is useful to have something on the author of a notable work, but he has apparently done little other than write the book. I therefore wonder whether the better solution may be to keep this article but merge into it the article on the book. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus among editor participants and opinion is so divided, I don't think further relistings would swing opinion strongly in one or the other direction. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Iron horse

Iron horse (  | 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 would do far better on Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bremps ... 00:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is only a single source which explains the meaning of the subject. (The link is now dead.) Other contents on the article are not sourced. 🛧 Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 08:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The article as it stands isn't very good but it's one that feels like it could be expanded to be wiki-notable. SportingFlyer T· C 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. What's there to expand? Move Iron horse (disambiguation) here afterward; the definition there is sufficient. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT, directly broken by the article's description of itself: "Iron horse is an iconic literary term..." Well, we have articles on steam locomotives and steam engines already; if this is about a term, then it belongs on Wiktionary, not here. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (not !voting yet); the article has a mildly interesting history I think, but the title would probably serve better purpose as a disambiguation page for other topics. I will say I'm surprised that there's no mention of "iron horse" on any relevant locomotive articles, as some could be a good fit for a tangential wikilink in the disambiguation page lead. I'm only vaguely familiar with the term, however. Utopes ( talk / cont) 06:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - it is well beyond wiktionary.. and in reality was a very widely used term that had ramifications in the 19th century into the 20th that obvious elude the current 'delete/dictionary' voters. JarrahTree 09:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment the term is used in a fanciful way to describe railways. On the high iron, the iron horse etc. I'd !keep if the article had better sourcing or more inline citations. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I would have to do a bit more research myself, but think there's some interesting info on the page that could be expanded, also quite a few incoming links, and the page hits are not inconsiderable over its lifetime. Some usages (e.g. in book titles, poems, etc.) could be included, as well as its other uses (e.g. representing a bicycle in the novel Things Fall Apart). I can see at least one article ( Iron Horse (board game)) which could probably be merged into this one too. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 08:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and move Iron horse (disambiguation) to target. We all admit that this is a term that was used, but there is no reason we need a page for a particular nickname for trains.. we could easily address this on the locomotive page. I strongly oppose merging articles into this one just because they share a name, as suggested above. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT, Better off at WikiDictionary. Fails NOTDICT and GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 20:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, better in Wikidictionary per others. Nothing here that cannot be dealt with just as well at locomotive.  Mr.choppers |  ✎  02:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep – this is not a dictionary article. There is already a Wiktionary article, here, and it says, and says only (and perhaps too narrowly), that "iron horse" means a "railroad steam locomotive". An accurate description of the Wikipedia article is that it is an article about the origins of the term, and how the term has been used over time. As such, it is an article that one would find not in a dictionary, but in an encyclopedic dictionary, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Indeed, as the article "encyclopedic dictionary" indicates, early major encyclopedias were an evolution of encyclopedic dictionaries. All of this does not mean that the Wikipedia article could not do with some improvement; it could. But the mere fact that it could do with improvement is not a sufficient reason to delete it, particularly now that it is better sourced than when it was nominated for deletion. Bahnfrend ( talk) 06:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a concept and as literary term goes beyond dictionary definition; supported by the refs which satisfy GNG. Djflem ( talk) 16:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Correction: Refs that support trivia desperately trying (and failing) to make the article look better. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. What Bahnfrend wrote is correct.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of generation IV Pokémon. This was a squeaker, but the main problem was the questionable listicles, and other sources. (non-admin closure) JTZegers ( talk) 17:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Lucario

Lucario (  | 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's reception were filled with listicles and such. Most of the sources are about his Smash Bros. reveal and rankings, some of the sources are pretty dead right now. Having won once or twice on Pokemon poll doesn't mean its notable, plus having hard time to find more sigcov per BEFORE. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 21:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I'd argue that what's there is enough to satisfy, though if the discussion leads merge then I'm unopposed to changing my vote. Pokelego999 ( talk) 22:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge to List of generation IV Pokémon. Not seeing any non-plot summary source there that meets WP:SIGCOV. The extensive research for passing mentions is nonetheless valuable and a merge should be carried out. While many articles like this have issues with stand-alone notability, I feel we don't do enough to merge the valuable content from them into relevant lists :( A problem that can be at least rectified one day if history is preserved (SOFTDELETE). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Many of the "listicles" do discuss and/or go into a level of detail about the character. WP:SIGCOV explicitly states that a topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The poll mentioned in the article isn't just any fan poll - "In the Pokémon of the Year poll held by The Pokémon Company, Lucario was voted the most popular Pokémon from Diamond and Pearl, receiving 102,259 votes. It was also the second-most popular Pokémon overall." This result was then covered by RS. If that isn't demonstrative of real-world notability, idk what is. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge as WP:ATD. Most coverage is WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. There isn't much to write about the fan poll other than it happened, and it's not enough WP:SIGCOV to

write a proper article. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge Pokemon articles tend to be vulnerable to AfM/AfD as the article's secondary sources are often used to add trivial commentary, especially where listicle-type articles are used to describe a Pokemon as one of the "best", or "cool". The test seems to be whether secondary sources offer a meaningful and independent perspective outside of the work. Unless notable in themselves, I'm not sure that user-based fan polls add substance in establishing notability. The kind of sourcing we are looking for is the IGN source, which seemed to be promising assessment of the impact, but turns out to only be a sentence in another listicle-type article. Contrast with Snorlax where meaningful secondary commentary has talked about the design of the Pokemon and its impact on popular culture. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 09:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per others JTZegers ( talk) 02:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    WDYM "per others". Keep votes were just ignorong policy and assumed every reliable sources are WP:SIGCOV. This vote wouldn't be counted by closing admin. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 02:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)on reply
    I meant the Pokemon of the Year poll and the sufficient amount of coverage otherwise. JTZegers ( talk) 02:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yeah. Lucario won Pokemon of the year, doesn't mean its WP:SIGCOV. It is just like listicles but reliable. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 03:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There seems to have been a giant crusade against Pokemon articles these past few years, but Lucario was literally the central character of a Pokemon movie, so he's at least more noteworthy than say Growlithe or Farfetch'd. There's tons of real world coverage of Lucario within the article itself ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. If some of the sources are unusable now, that can be fixed through editing and not deleting. We don't need an article on every thousand something Pokemon, but noms such as this lean too far the other direction. The issue Wikipedia had with being another Bulbapedia is long gone.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Being a popular character, doesn't mean its automatically notable. Those listicle sources you showed and one article that talks about its figurine doesn't contribute WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 11:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes they do. GNG explicitly says that the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Your assertions that listicles are automatically not SIGCOV have no basis in policy. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 06:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Perhaps, this might help you know. Wikipedia:Notability (video game characters). GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 10:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Noting the above is an essay and not policy; I think I'd qualify it's less that a cited article is a listicle and more that the secondary sources lend themselves to a trivial discussion and evaluation about the subject matter. Lucario has obviously been mentioned across wide sources in some way, but the depth and relevance of those sources as significant coverage is the issue. For instance, of the sources cited above, [1] briefly discusses Lucario only in the context of its appearance in Smash; [2] evaluates Lucario as "iconic", a "personal favorite" and "instant hit", but there is little discussion of why, which lends itself to an interpretation it is trivial coverage; [3]-[4] are purely descriptive of Lucario products; [5] conveys the outcome of the poll but does not mention Lucario at all; and [6] is a primary source that mentions Lucario once in passing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 23:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be useful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge "Full of listicles" is technically not a valid deletion argument, as listicles are fully admissible as sources, but "full of trivial mentions" is, and that's what describes the sourcing in the article. Listicles are usually trivial coverage and this is no exception, therefore the same issue applies as many fictional subject articles in which the editors assume that any mention, no matter how small, counts towards notability. Most of what I was able to find is simply SEO-style content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 05:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge None of the articles listed above constitute significant coverage of the subject.
  • In the case of this example given above: [7], Lucario isn't even mentioned by the writer at all; the name is only seen once, in passing, on the republished poll results at the bottom of the page.
  • In this example given above: [8], the source is a listicle of the "top 150(!) Pokemon", each entry only getting 3-5 sentences in what clearly constitutes trivial coverage.
  • In this example: [9], Lucario is only mentioned in one sentence: "Yes, it's incredibly difficult! Especially [coming] up with a name [that] is universal here, in the U.S. or Europe, such as Pikachu, Dialga, Palkia, and Lucario." Not only is Lucario not the focal point of the interview, they're not even the focal point of the one sentence they appear in.

Lucario might be the main character of a movie or a popular character in a video game, but the sources provided haven't done a good job of showcasing significant coverage. FlotillaFlotsam ( talk) 03:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Selective Merge I've gone through the article and the Reception section seems to be the only section with sources independent of the subject. (An IGN article was cited in the Concept and creation section. However, the article contains only two full sentences about Lucario and is sourced entirely to the Super Smash Bros. official website-hardly an independent source). In the main Reception section, the vast majority of sources consist of listicle grade articles where large number of Pokémon will be included on a list and get only a few sentences of coverage each. The Merchandise sub-section is supported by a few relatively short articles about specific pieces of Lucario merchandise such as Nanoblocks and Gallery figures; there aren't any sources focusing on Lucario merchandise as a larger category. In summation, there is little in-depth coverage of Lucario from sources independent of Nintendo/Game Freak and what independent sources do exist consist mainly of routine Pokémon-related coverage that contains barely more than a trivial mention about Lucario. It could perhaps be argued that Lucario and the hundreds of other Pokémon that have received similar coverage just barely meet notability requirements. However, I think it's preferable to confine most Pokémon to the lists and reserve stand-alone articles for only the most notable Pokémon than it is to create hundreds of articles on debatably notable Pokémon (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). To this end, I think we can cover our bases here by adding a sentence or two about Super Smash Brothers and Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew to Lucario's entry in the List of generation IV Pokémon article and then redirecting this article there. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 22:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
For those advocating Merge, do you also support the suggestion that the target be List of generation IV Pokémon? Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm fine with that. FlotillaFlotsam ( talk) 01:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, that is the best place to put the information. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:25, 8 September 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 Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Tom Atcheson

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 22:10, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 23:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Cha Jung-sok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 22:03, 5 September 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 Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Spain in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023

Spain in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON for an event being hosted in November. There is no evidence this appearance in this event will be notable until the event is over or closer. I'm also including:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Draftify both as TOOSOON BrigadierG ( talk) 23:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

IndiaFilings.com

IndiaFilings.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)

Not notable, probably an Advertisement by the company. KnightMight ( talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and India. Shellwood ( talk) 16:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I see some reliable sources, such as The Hindu Business Line, The Economic Times, Business Standard India, and The New Indian Express, have covered various facets of the company. -- Mozzcircuit ( talk) 08:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep As well as the sources mentioned by Mozzcircuit, IndiaFilings has also been covered by The Times of India. Some of the sources in the article seem a little promotional/frivolous, especially the paywalled Economic Times articles, but generally I think this company has just about enough significant reliable coverage to warrant an article, unless non-independence of sources can be proven. pinktoebeans (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Times of India source is basically the press release from [10] with some VERY minor changes. If this had been pasted into an article here, it would have been reverted and rev-deleted as a copyright violation. It's published on TOI, but it's just a press release. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
TH NARAYANAN V [11] No depends heavily on voice of founder, doesn't meet SIRS ? ~ ✘ No
Economic Times, Vinay Dwivedi [12] No as above ? ~ ✘ No
New Indian Express, Praveen Kumar [13] No as above ? ~ ✘ No
Economic Times, Maleeva Rebello [14] No as above ? No ✘ No
New Indian Express, "ANI" [15] No WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news No WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news ~ ✘ No
BT, Binu Paul [16] No depends heavily on voice of founder, doesn't meet SIRS ? No ✘ No
Business Standard [17] No heavily dependent on business partner ? No No CORPDEPTH but could be used to add a sentence to DBS Bank § India ✘ No
BW, Resham Suhail [18] No fully an interview with employee ? No ✘ No
Free Press Journal, FPJ Web Desk [19] No WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news No WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news ~ ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if those editors advocating Keep care to respond to the source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete agree with source analysis - all coverage reads as a press release. BrigadierG ( talk) 23:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete based on the source table above. Most of the sources look like press-release stuff. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All PR sourcing, fails ORGIND/NCORP/GNG. HighKing ++ 20:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per source analysis table by Siroxo. Looks PR sourcing.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️) 09:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • {{vd}} based on the source analysis and my review of the sources. Too much fluff, not much actual stuff from an independent secondary source. The original work feels like WP:UPE. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:50, 11 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 01:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mohammad Esmaili

Mohammad Esmaili (  | 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 was an unsourced BLP for many years and eventually deleted via WP:PROD in March 2021, with just this source. A few days ago, on 15 August 2023, it was recreated as a translation from the French Wikipedia, with two obituaries as sources. I am having trouble finding anything further, and I am skeptical that this French translation addresses the notability issue that resulted in the last proposed deletion. The only thing changed was the subject had passed away. Was someone who wasn't notable due to having only one source would suddenly become notable upon his death because he has two obituaries? He may well be notable but the sources are likely to be in Persian. He might even meet WP:MUSICBIO in Iran, although evidence of that is scant. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion was already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option and right now, only the nominator supports Delete. Here's hoping we hear from a few more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as this is looking more and more like No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. My review of the sources doesn't support the idea that the article subject as a "lesser government minister" — rather, they read more like he was a senior employee within the ministry of culture. The sources provided do not appear sufficient to indicate notability. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:31, 11 September 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. ✗ plicit 23:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Alexandre Cerdeira

Alexandre Cerdeira (  | 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 former footballer who had a non-notable journeyman career and which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. I created this article in 2007 before I understood that NSPORTS required significant coverage in reliable sources, and following WP:NSPORTS2022 that is well-established. I attempted to PROD months ago, but an editor reverted on the grounds that many similar articles exist. I've searched for significant coverage in English, Portuguese, Icelandic, Greek and Bulgarian language sources without finding anything helpful (e.g., the Icelandic newspaper archive yields a Fréttir squad listing). Jogurney ( talk) 20:28, 29 August 2023 (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! 21:21, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 23:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Steve Ahlquist

Steve Ahlquist (  | 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)

There's no significant coverage of the Ahlquist in sources truly independent of him and significant coverage appears limited to within the outlets he's worked for and self-published sources. There might have been a considerable coverage in a student paper though. I also want to mention there are indications that the article's creator is very closely related to the article subject. Appears to fail NBIO and GNG Graywalls ( talk) 21:13, 5 September 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. czar 22:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Central European Exchange Program for University Studies

Central European Exchange Program for University Studies (  | 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 spam, notability not established * Pppery * it has begun... 20:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The article fails WP:GNG, and it reads like an advertisement. Several section titles are in uppercase letters as well. FlutterDash344 ( talk) 20:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not a notable enough topic and a very poorly written article. Sgubaldo ( talk) 08:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Europe. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Comes across as a promotional essay and it doesn't appear as though any type of notability criteria has been met. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:35, 6 September 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. ✗ plicit 23:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

News Digest

News Digest (  | 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 news company dating back to 2022 that does not satisfy our WP:NCORP or WP:SIGCOV. Sources are basically primary sources from its website or the web developer and the article has basically turned to listing directory for its staff. Jamiebuba ( talk) 19:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Orange County Public Schools. Liz Read! Talk! 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Horizon High School (Florida)

Horizon High School (Florida) (  | 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)

High schools are not inherently notable. This one, of such a short life, is not. Bedivere ( talk) 18:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Adel Rahman

AfDs for this article:
Adel Rahman (  | 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)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Unable to Prod due to previous AFD. (where it was deleted and has since been recreated) IceBergYYC ( talk) 17:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. IceBergYYC ( talk) 17:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Canada. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I cannot find anything that would put this person past WP:GNG. The teams that Rahman has played for were not considered fully-professional leagues under the now former WP:NFOOTY list of professional leagues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. While all of those notability arguments are largely deprecated, it is difficult to find an argument for notability even under WP:GNG and given the teams that were played for, it is unlikely that sufficient coverage exists, beyond what I have attempted to find but have not found to meet WP:THREE, due to minimal coverage existing of many of these leagues. In absense of anything to push over WP:GNG, it seems best to delete. Tartar Torte 17:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete Plays for a semi-pro league in Canada (I live near the town where he plays and didn't know of it...) Non-notable playing career. Non-notable athlete, delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt not become more notable since the last AFD. He didn't even pass the more lenient football notability guidelines in 2021 (or now either), and he certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Non-notable athlete who only participates in minor football leagues, and it is largely reliant on one source. "www.league1ontario.com" is simply Rahman's profile, and that misses other coverage that the source simply misses. Simply stating statistics for a player is simply not enough for notability. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 12:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nomination Worldiswide ( talk) 11:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Dalit businesses

Dalit businesses (  | 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 article seems to fail WP:GNG and also the topic is not clear. It seems someone created it as test page. Admantine123 ( talk) 17:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It's common garden variety Indospam to promote certain business schemes to a vulnerable caste. No tolerance for this should be had. Nate • ( chatter) 23:56, 5 September 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 Withdrawal. Article was basically saved from what could've been a permastub and the concerns that made me begin the discussion were addressed. ( non-admin closure)‎ Negative MP1 08:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Baldi's Basics in Education and Learning

Baldi's Basics in Education and Learning (  | 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 article used to give the illusion of being notable for having a bunch of unreliable sources caked onto it to justify WP:FANCRUFT. After clearing the garbage, all that remains is only five sources and a WP:PERMASTUB. What are these five sources and what do they have?

  • 1 announces the game is coming to mobile, doesn't say much else except that it was a fad.
  • 2 is just evidence of an Internet fad that died out in months, maybe one paragraph of reception.
  • 3 ...I'm not sure what says, I don't speak German and I don't know about the reliability of Google Translate here.
  • 4 is a developer interview. Usable for development information but nothing really for reception.
  • 5 just says that the game was popular with YouTubers.

None of the sources provided are usable critic reviews (YouTubers do not count) and a search for WP:BEFORE turned up nothing extra. There is also no coverage to cover the games extra versions and the upcoming sequel, which for the subject is key information. This article would be lopsided with being 95% development and gameplay and 5% reception. I almost think it's better not having an article at all due to the lack of coverage, hence why I am nominating it. Negative MP1 16:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Negative MP1 16:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The Kotaku and 4Players easily are good enough sources to determine notability, but I'll list some more sources to boot: Game Design Deep Dive: Horror ISBN  9781000451108 (pg. 85), Automaton review (in Japanese), Pixel (in Polish), and Konbini (in French). Niche but reliable publications in lots of languages for you! Why? I Ask ( talk) 06:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Is there proof these smaller niche places are reliable sources? None are listed in WP:VG/S. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Game Design Deep Dive: Horror may as well fall under the same boat as the Gematsu / Game Developer article (writer also writes for the site). Also, it mentions the word "Baldi" once. As for the others, there is no evidence that Pixel and Konbini are reliable sources, so it is likely safe to not use them in notability related discussions. Also take into consideration the things I pointed out about the lack of new information on the game, which is pretty key for the subject. Negative MP1 18:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Pixel and Konbini both have Wikipedia pages as they are decently known, but non-English, sources. Automaton is published by Active Gaming Media and is decently popular in Japan. Just because they are foreign sources does not mean they are not useable. Why? I Ask ( talk) 20:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    My point isn't the fact they're foreign sources, that was never the point, we have sources like Jeuxvideo that are considered perfectly usable here, it's the fact they're undiscussed here that slightly concerns me. Do the Wikis for those specific languages consider them reliable sources? I'm not saying they're completely unusable, just concerned about their usage for notability. Negative MP1 20:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete This is a borderline case where the sources are surprisingly shallow on independent commentary. Part of the ambiguity is that a WP:BEFORE doesn't yield any other reliable sources in WP:VG/S, so we need to evaluate several sources of variable depth and reliability for what they have to say about the game. The Kotaku articles, when taken together, do offer some brief assessments of the game, and comment on the cultural impact of the game. For the Game Developer article, I disagree with the characterisation that Couture has not provided his own perspective on the game - the article does thoughtfully evaluate the effectiveness of the game's design, but it is mostly a primary interview source. Otherwise, I agree the article's current reliable secondary sources, including the Pocket Gamer and 4Players articles, offer marginal to no evaluative commentary on the game, and mostly read as a description. This sadly seems to also be the case with the suggested sources, particularly Automaton and Pixel, the reliability of which I have no idea. The page on Game Design Deep Dive is not significant coverage of the game in question, but a brief description of the game as an example of its use of a horror narrative device. That leaves very little breadth of independent coverage on this article that isn't a description of the game. I admit that I was surprised this game hasn't received more coverage. Happy to be proven wrong; I think all this article needs is another strong source or two to confidently say this enters general notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 12:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep There's enough significant coverage from reliable sources, IMO. Skyshifter talk 00:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Can you provide three examples? I'm still unsure of where to lean. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 17:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes. [21] [22] [23] are significant coverage about Baldi's Basic, while [24] goes in detail about the development. [25] gives significant coverage to Baldi's Basics Plus, and [26] [27] to Baldi's Basics Classic, which are official versions of the game. [28] gives significant coverage to the game's popularity, which is also relevant. Skyshifter talk 18:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Withdraw I'm still disappointed in the lack of actual critical reception, but it very clearly meets the notability guidelines by this point, which is what this discussion was for. It was also destubbed. I'll close this discussion as a withdrawal soon. Negative MP1 08:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Kuwait Direct Investment Promotion Authority

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

Does not meet the notability requirements; WP:NCORP. Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie ( talk) 12:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 13:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per Ponadura and follow ups. Active agency of a sovereign government with significant international coverage. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 18:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Algozooki

Algozooki (  | 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)

Contested prod. Article creation WP:CoI by the subject's creator. Zero indication of any importance. Complete failure of WP:GNG, WP:WEBHOST and WP:SOAPBOX. A youtube series that averages under 50 views a video is so far from notable it isn't funny. IceBergYYC ( talk) 16:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources, and the sourcing in the article is primary. The article was previously redirected to Algodoo but this show just happens to use the Algodoo software and is otherwise unrelated so I do not support any redirection. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete. This is a prod, borderline G11. There is nothing about this youtube channel(?) online, sourcing is primary... And a wall of plot synopses, longer than the actual "thing" the article is about. Fancruft, it should be on a website for enthusiasts of the channel(?). Again, I can't even really understand what the article talks about before it gives me way too many details... Oaktree b ( talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    50 views a video? I missed that part. I have youtube videos with as many views, I'm nowhere near notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Oh believe me, I tried CSD, Prod, Blank and Redirect. Now we are here. IceBergYYC ( talk) 20:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and United Kingdom. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. 50 views per video is a laughable number that makes this fail even the most lenient of notability guidelines (looking at you, WP:NSPORTS). I've had almost as many people watch me live at some point. Also, I wanna point out that a few IPs have attempted to remove the AfD template from the page. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 07:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I actually PROD'd this earlier after I saw it was added as the "successor" to Bamzooki under the see also section of it's article (since I had edited that page earlier) and I didn't even realize it was still up. There is absolutely nothing going for it, there are likely millions of YouTube channels with more viewers than this. Totalibe ( talk) 23:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Todd Bosley

Todd Bosley (  | 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 mostly listing bit parts in television episodes. WP:BEFORE only turned up mentions/interviews about his role in Little Giants but otherwise there isn't enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 16:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lollipop (Italian band). Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Popstars Remixed

Popstars Remixed (  | 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 since 2009 with no attempts at improvement. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Foreign language sources may exist but did not come up in my search. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 15:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Lollipop (Italian band): The one immediately apparent advantage this article presents is charting, but ItalianCharts.com doesn't list the album (it does support the charting for "Batte Forte" though) and Hung Medien's charts only show the top 20 per week. Without that, the article as is does not support any claims to notability, and my search (also probably limited in regards to Italian-language sources) turned up nothing additional. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 16:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Paul Field (Christian singer). Liz Read! Talk! 16:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Love Between the Lines

Love Between the Lines (  | 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 since 2008 with no attempts at improvement. I could not find significant coverage of any kind. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 15:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Paul Field (Christian singer): Found zero coverage. Would consider WP:A7 eligible. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply

Under Giant Trees

Under Giant Trees (  | 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 since 2015. Fails to meet WP:NALBUM as no WP:SIGCOV exists that I can find. A couple blog posts about it but not enough to prove notability. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 15:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator: Sufficient sourcing exists for notability. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 17:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Found three reviews ( [29] [30] [31]) and two book excerpts discussing the graphic design of the record's packaging ( [32] [33]). With all that, it'd be a short article but not a non-notable one. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 16:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Happy to have been proven wrong! I will have to add archive.org to my WP:BEFORE regimen. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 17:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Scrubs characters#Janitor. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Janitor (Scrubs)

Janitor (Scrubs) (  | 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)

Many sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Scrubs characters#Janitor. Spinixster (chat!) 14:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. ✗ plicit 14:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

GoTo (Indonesian company)

GoTo (Indonesian company) (  | 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:NCORP due to insufficient WP:RS Expressive101 ( talk) 14:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Indonesia. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep for what should be obvious reasons, this is a highly consequential multi-billion dollar company with extensive independent media coverage. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 02:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Company is definitely notable and I think there are definitely reliable sources (such as the article's Bloomberg references) present. Sgubaldo ( talk) 11:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I've check all of the link and their articles, turns out many of them have reliable source like from Fortune, Bloomberg, SCMP, etc. I dont understand the reason why this article is getting deleted? SteamManx ( talk) 23:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - clearly notable after reviewing the article’s refs. In particular, look at the operating numbers in this Fortune article: [35] This company is huge and consequential in a very populous country (Indonesia). — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:24, 8 September 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. ✗ plicit 14:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mahamudra (band)

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

Unsourced since 2020 with not attempts at improvement. Band does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It appears that despite three albums, they were never noticed by the reliable music media. All I can find are typical social media promotions and self-upload sites, and even those are sparse. Being from Israel, it is possible that they could have some coverage in Hebrew, but if so it probably wouldn't be too significant. Also note that searching is tough because you will results related to Mahamudra religious practices. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Zepto

Zepto (  | 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:NCORP. References are routine coverage. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep Talk 14:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep added third-party reliable sources for India's 84th unicorn.-- Curvasingh ( talk) 02:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Agree with the source analysis given. Nothing we can use for notability, I can't find much else to use either. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
This is about the only non-PR source I can find, and it's fluff [36]. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Lets examine the references:
  • Ref 1 [37] Monthly sales double. Press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 2 [38] X of Y article. Attractive place to work. Not independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 3 [39] Raised 100m. Fails [[WP:CORPDEPTH]. Taken straight from the company blog.
  • Ref 4 [40] Raises 200million. Press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Monies raised.
  • Ref 5 [41] Interview with the founders. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 6 [42] From a press-release.
  • Ref 7 [43] More monies raised.
  • Ref 8 [44] Taken from a company report.

Not a single reference here passes WP:NCORP. It is all coming from the company. scope_creep Talk

  • Delete Nothing reliable found, and 'unicorn' is an industry term no normal person will ever know with made-up criteria. Nate • ( chatter) 15:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Clan MacInnes

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

an unsourced stub about an unnotable scottish clan. ltbdl ( talk) 14:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Clearly in need of some work but have you carried out WP:BEFORE? Compared to other clans, info is relatively scant but on a quick search, Ian Grimble has an entry in his "Scottish Clans and Tartans" from 1973 and there's this and this. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 16:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ltbdl ( talk) 14:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on the sources provided by Mutt Lunker. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 14:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The article was gutted three times in the last week for lack of RS with no apparent attempt to improve it with sources. It is appropriately tagged with {{unreferenced}}. Deleting this article does nothing to improve Wikipedia. • Policy-specific objections: It is abundantly clear that WP:BEFORE was not even attempted. B2 (and all of D) per Mutt Lunker and gScholar note below; B3 (wholesale gutting noted above); B6 (there are 336 inbound links); and B4, C1 and C3 (nothing on Talk at all). As a Scottish clan, WP:GNG is incredibly easy to establish with a quick search on gScholar. Note that, when improving the article, some care will need to be taken as many scholars of Clan MacInnes are members of the Clan, either by name or descent, which may make some of them WP:PRIMARY. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Potentially restore this version, tagging it as unreferenced. The account in that version reads to me as a credible account from tradition. I would expect there to be some published sources providing confirmation of some of that. Clan organisation websites are not an ideal source, due to COI and possibly even COPYVIO, but are better than nothing. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:06, 8 September 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. ✗ plicit 14:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mr Indian Hacker

Mr Indian Hacker (  | 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 couldn't find enough significant coverage about him aside from websites focused on YouTube content and gossip sites. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 13:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I don't know enough about any Indian media sites to assess reliability of any of these sources, but 1, 2, or 3 might establish notability. Please feel free to laugh me out of the room if these are all garbage. I'm not surprised most of the sources are focused on YouTubers. Old media scant covers new media. Definitely has SIGCOV, but I'm not able to get a feel for the reputation, editorial policies, or independence of the sites linked. Folly Mox ( talk) 03:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Folly Mox, The first and second sources are from local bio wiki websites that publish everyone's biographies with self-determined random data such as income, date of birth, family, favourite things, and girlfriend information etc. The third source you mentioned is from MetaStory, which takes articles and information from third parties and can't be relied upon, as stated in their own content disclaimer here. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you! Sounds like a delete from me unless someone is able to locate adequate sourcing. Folly Mox ( talk) 05:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. My favourite reference so far is the one from "Nova Scotia Today" [45], on which the fine print notes R.K. Empire, 150″ Ring Road, Near Mawdi Chowkdi, Rajkot 360004, Gujarat, INDIA. Novascotiatoday.com is a member of BotxByte Media Group, India. Wikishovel ( talk) 16:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: not have any reliable source, only gossip stuff Worldiswide ( talk) 03:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per nomination. Idiosincrático ( talk) 03:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
mr Indian Hacker is a big YouTuber who has 3 crore subscribers on YouTube. If you don't know then go to their YouTube channel and watch. And India's number 3 youtuber There must be their Wikipedia page. Please do not delete this page (BRGV) Bhargav Polara ( talk) 04:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Yep, seems pretty silly, but that's the rules 🙃 *gestures helplessly at The Rules* Folly Mox ( talk) 04:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This article has been has been deleted three different times (including once via AfD) under the namespace Dilraj Singh Rawat. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 19:55, 8 September 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. ✗ plicit 14:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Ansar Siman Shahrood F.C.

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

Unsourced since 2013 with no attempts at improvement. Outside of Wikipedia mirrors, I could find no significant coverage outside of listings on betting websites. While it is possible foreign-language sources exist, I have no way of finding or evaluating those. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 13:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawal requested by nominator. (non-admin closure) – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply

List of algal fuel producers

List of algal fuel producers (  | 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)

Wastes reader’s time - they might think from the title that algal fuel is sold commercially Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Lists. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this is a back-to-front list. Algal oil is definitely a hot topic, and it's reasonable to have a list of companies connected with it, but the nominator is correct that the list is only useful if it provides an entry-point to further information. As a list it should contain predominantly blue-links with the odd red-link where an article really ought to be written. As it stands, it's mostly no-links, with locations wiki-linked to make it look as though there's some blue-linking. If we trim out all the entries that don't link to something, there will be so little left that the list is useless. The existing list has some small merit as a starting-point for anyone who wants to write articles about companies that produce algal oil (or said they would). And it is a collection of 64 sources which is a substantial amount of work to track down. I would much rather see this list converted into what it should be, than deleted. Anyone fancy writing a very large number of articles? Elemimele ( talk) 16:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well sustainable aviation fuel is a hot topic, but as I understand it sugar beet is a more likely feedstock as algal fuel was found to be too difficult/expensive. Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on my experience at Articles for deletion/Commercial fusion. I didn't realize how big a field commercial fusion had become - there's more private money going into fusion research this year than government money. Fascinated, I started chipping away at all the unreferenced entries as the AfD went on; I'm proud of the finished product: Commercial fusion. I also became more familiar with out stand-alone lists guideline. Sometimes a list will contain mostly entries that don't merit their own articles. The requirement is that they be still be reliably referenced. This allows reliable coverage without 50+ little marginal articles. If a crummy article appears, we just redirect it to the list.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 20:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I spent some time flagging problematic citations. I'll continue tomorrow. Time permitting, after marking all the existing citations, I'll start searching for better refs. At first glance, some of these seem dinkier and older than the companies on the commercial fusion lists. Some no longer have web sites (I'll delete those) and others have 1990s style main pages. I'm guessing the link will shrink by 50% but we'll see. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 23:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - No policy-based reason is given for this AfD. Wastes reader’s time is a long way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It should have been procedurally closed immediately. Since it wasn't: I don't even like list articles, and I have to admit this is one of the best-sourced to come up for deletion in a while, and it actually passes WP:SELCRIT. It passes WP:NLIST and, if it wasn't a list, would pass WP:GNG as well. There is no valid, policy-based rationale for deletion, and it would not improve Wikipedia to do so. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    My reason "Wastes reader’s time" was not just because I did not like the article but because it was garbage. Now that the article is being improved thanks to A. B. it will hopefully be useful for readers in future. So I hereby withdraw this deletion request. Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I hereby withdraw this deletion request - see above - thanks A. B. Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:05, 7 September 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. ✗ plicit 14:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Behjat Abad Market

Behjat Abad Market (  | 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 since 2013 with no attempts at improvement. The external sources are either WP:PRIMARY or user-editable. My WP:BEFORE search only turned up one potential source but it's short and not enough for WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 13:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Botryococcus braunii. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Biofuel applications of botryococcene

Biofuel applications of botryococcene (  | 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 and uneconomic Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I removed the PROD for purely technical reasons. I agree with Chidgk1's PROD reasoning. Ping me if new information comes up validating this article.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 14:44, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 13:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Johann Weiß (footballer)

Johann Weiß (footballer) (  | 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:SPORTCRIT. Only some marginal sources / name checks in amateur football match reports like [46] or [47], no substantial coverage. Dr. Duh  🩺 ( talk) 12:48, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 13:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Special X

Special X (  | 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 satellite radio channel doesn't have enough coverage and the sources in the article are not reliable, failing WP:GNG. I suppose a redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels is fine. Let'srun ( talk) 11:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Assim Al-Hakeem

Assim Al-Hakeem (  | 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 cleric, possible UPE, article was moved to draft three times by three different editors for improvements but of no use. Tetrainn ( talk) 11:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep: Subject has dozens of book and scholarly paper mentions as a prominent cleric, so passes WP:GNG based on the sheer prevalence of references, regardless of other considerations. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The article was not moved to draft three times by three different editors. It was moved one time by Pbritti, then improved and submitted to AfC and accepted by me. The nominator then moved a second time, which I reverted per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. The accusation of UPE is unsubstantiated and probably should be struck. @ Tetrainn: If you have evidence that someone is engaging in UPE, then follow the instructions in WP:PAID#Reporting undisclosed paid editors and send it to a functionary. –  Joe ( talk) 08:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, an article may only be unilaterally moved to draft space a single time. So the nominator's statement is an admission of violating our draftification procedures. The nominator's own misbehavior is not a valid reason for a deletion nomination. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The cleric itself is notable as his fatwas have already been cited in books and journals. Moreover, he has been on TV, answering many questions about Islam. Hence, I believe that he passed the notability requirement and deserves to have a Wikipedia article. Faldi00 ( talk) 07:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep. From a quick google search I thought notability would be very clear, but I'm not sure any of the RS coverage is significant. Not gonna whack out the sources table. UPE allegations unlikely since coverage is pretty mixed in tone.
I'm guessing there are lots more arabic sources here I'm not getting at. Given that this individual's focus is primarily in producing arabic content for muslims and is relevant enough in that field to be mentioned by BBC and The Guardian, I think it's fair to assume more coverage exists that I'm not able to locate right now. That said, the current article is a puff piece and doesn't adequately represent the extent to which he has been criticised for bigoted views.
BrigadierG ( talk) 12:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:SUSTAINED could also reasonably considered to be fulfilled by the level of diversity and regularity of the subject's coverage. The figure is mentioned frequently and repeatedly. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Essentially, there haven't been any really substantive arguments that give a clear consensus, and after three relists, it's time to bring discussion to a close. However, the article is in very poor shape, so no prejudice against renomination if it is not improved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Joro the Paver

Joro the Paver (  | 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 BLP article with only 2 (quite unreliable) references. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 02:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Law, Europe, and Bulgaria. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 02:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He's a notorious at national level, with few imitators. There are many references in the media (indeed mostly tabloid articles but this is expected) [48] + some book references (among others fiction that is considered modern classics and related literary crticism) [49]. -- Nk ( talk) 06:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Nk: Being famous on a national level is not notability, and I believe that tabloid news should not be taken seriously and aren't reliable sources.
    Per WP:SENSATIONAL: "[Tabloid journalism] is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article." QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 10:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    (BTW, I'm a Bulgarian myself) QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 10:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. And let's remember that crimes committed in Bulgaria in 1968 are unlikely to have substantial online coverage. Not a BLP, incidentally, as the true identity of the perpetrator is uncertain. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Necrothesp:

    [...] crimes committed in Bulgaria in 1968 are unlikely to have substantial online coverage

    Then either find offline sources, find better online sources, or delete this article. And I do believe this is a BLP, just because he's anonymous does not mean he's not a legal entity. (Unless you can find any policy that states otherwise) -- QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    For example, Banksy (an anonymous artist) is considered a living person. I know that Mr. Paver is no longer active, but the crimes were not committed long enough ago for him to be assumed dead. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 15:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    As I said, already meets WP:GNG. We have the BLP rules due to sensitivities about living people. You can't have sensitivities regarding someone who just bears a nickname assigned by someone else. This is not the case with Banksy. We might not know who he is, but he is a specific individual with a specific identity which he adopted himself. An unidentified criminal is a completely different kettle of fish. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more policy-based opinions on this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I don't think this is a BLP when all the biographical information that exists is a nickname for an anonymous person but I'm also not impressed with the sources presented. I'd relist this discussion but I think that would demonstrate an opinion on this closure so I'll just leave a comment. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This would benefit from a source analysis as at the moment we have one editor says the sources are bad and another says they are good. Why?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep look, the article as written needs a lot of work and I wouldn't accept it at AfC (I have a rule where I don't "go outside the references" at AfC to determine notability) but after a source search it's either crystal clear this article can be improved through reliable sources, or I'm entirely failing at understanding which Bulgarian sources are reliable. SportingFlyer T· C 12:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Having looked at the sources, I'm skeptical that the subject of this article warrants inclusion under WP:NEVENT / WP:CRIME (both of which require some sense of being a "well-documented historic event" or "enduring historical significance"/""widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources"). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    The sources in the article are horrible. A WP:BEFORE search clears things up, especially in Cyrillic. SportingFlyer T· C 22:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've done a search, but the sources I've found have had insufficient quality. Would you mind sharing the high-quality sources that you've seen? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Stuff like this is par for the course in Balkan news print. Dnevnik had four hits but all of those articles were paywalled. It was also at least mentioned in this article. I'm not an expert in Bulgarian media and have only spent about three minutes on this so apologies if these aren't the best sources - they're representative. SportingFlyer T· C 21:47, 12 September 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. ✗ plicit 13:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 UPSC Same Roll Scandal

2023 UPSC Same Roll Scandal (  | 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:EVENT. Exam result/certificate forgery is a regular incident in India. Written like a news based on WP:RECENTISM. Per WP:LASTING, "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else". The Doom Patrol ( talk) 09:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Pilar Neira

Pilar Neira (  | 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. No significant coverage can be found. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 00:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Spain. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 00:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep Article has been expanded and a number of sources added. Sources are not plentiful, but in light of the well-reported issue of sexism in Spanish football this is unsurprising. Even if she is not strictly within the WP:NSPORT guideline, as a national team coach, Olympic coach, etc., she has been a trailblazer in women's soccer in Spain. Oblivy ( talk) 01:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep with the new changes and sources. Utopes ( talk / cont) 04:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage on her. Q+A interviews like the La Opinion A Coruna and Xornal sources do not provide sigcov. Dougal18 ( talk) 10:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per Oblivy and Utopes. Clearly significan tfigure in Spanish womens football. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 17:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Das osmnezz: Could you please provide some actual arguments? You do this on every AfD... "per someone else" without defending anything. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 00:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
For example, [50], [51], and [52] all have secondary coverage... Clearly significan tfigure in Spanish womens football THanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 07:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
First source offers little coverage, second source is a primary source (direct Q&A interview), and third source is also a primary source interview. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
They literally a;; have secondary coverage... Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 17:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Daniel Koh

AfDs for this article:
Daniel Koh (  | 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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mr. Koh has received enough press coverage and holds noteworthy office when compared to similar people. Koh is similar to Gina Ortiz Jones. A failed congressional candidate appointed to the Biden administration. MarblePolitics ( talk) 22:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Without looking any further than the article, I see feature articles from the Boston Herald and the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune giving significant coverage to the subject, and it's disquieting to see that those sources were in place when the nomination was made. Given that the nomination was made in a flurry of other edits, if WP:BEFORE was done at all, it was done hastily and sloppily. Just on the basis of those two sources I'd give this a GNG pass -- leaving aside what other sources are out there -- that the subject doesn't meet NPOL is irrelevant. Ravenswing 12:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Never mind that just simply typing "Daniel Koh" + "Boston" into a Google News search also turned up significant coverage in the Boston Globe [53] and shorter pieces in the Boston Business Journal [54], the New York Times [55], Bloomberg Law News [56] and the Andover Townsman [57]. It took me a good bit longer to type all this out than it did to find those sources, and I hope we can trust in the nom's good sense to withdraw this nomination promptly, and to exercise more care with the next AfD. Ravenswing 12:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Is Deputy Cabinet Secretary a notable role for NPOL? I don't think WP:GNG is met based on those sources, since one's a 40 under 40, another is directly on him but is more about finding someone who has ADHD than his own notability (but is clearly the best one), the Bloomberg is what we would describe in the sports world as "routine transactional", the NY Times simply quotes him for an entirely different story, and the Andover Townsman isn't GDPR friendly. SportingFlyer T· C 12:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    You're tossing out the Herald and Eagle-Tribune sources as well? Ravenswing 19:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Herald coverage is speculation he'll run for lieutenant governor, which we typically classify as routine political coverage. The Eagle-Tribune also isn't GDPR friendly (not accessible here). SportingFlyer T· C 00:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    GDPR is the European privacy regulation; the editor is likely in Europe, and rather than comply with the directive, they block access to the site in Europe to avoid issues. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Deputy Cabinet Secretary does not meet NPOL, though obviously this would not preclude him from being notable through GNG. Can you clarify what you mean by GDPR friendly; I'm not sure what this means? Curbon7 ( talk) 21:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Wondering that myself, and whatever it is, what notability guideline explicitly debars it. I also admit this is the first time I've ever seen reference to "routine political coverage" as disqualifying an otherwise valid source from notability; wouldn't that apply to ANY article about ANY politician? Ravenswing 05:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    We typically delete political candidates who may even pass GNG on the grounds that anyone running for office gets a certain level of coverage and typically redirect them to the page of the election they ran for. That's even a step below that - this person might run. Same with low-level elected officials. I'm also not arguing GDPR is disqualifying, just that they're local websites which don't follow GDPR guidelines and so aren't accessible to me. SportingFlyer T· C 09:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Let's try again: to what are you referring when you say "GDPR?" What notability guideline cites it as a valid reason to disqualify a GNG pass? (The only definition of the acronym I can find refers to the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, which can't possibly refer to a United States citizen, and it would be flat out absurd to think it had any connection with a newspaper putting its articles online.) What do you mean by "not accessible here?" I can access those sources just fine, and in any event you're well aware that even being behind a paywall or being offline doesn't disqualify a source.

    With that, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that otherwise reliable, valid sources are disqualified from the GNG (and again, what guideline says so?) if they're concerning a candidate running for public office, and in the next breath concede that they're not concerning a candidacy for public office, but for some reason they're disqualified anyway. Ravenswing 02:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    I am saying I cannot access these sources because American websites do not comply with the GDPR and as such are not accessible in my location. I am not trying to disqualify those specific sources, though they appear to be from very local news publications. One appears to be a "local guy makes good" article from the headline, though. SportingFlyer T· C 07:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    See my above comment about the GDPR. Privacy regulation that most American sites choose not to comply with. We have PIPEDA in Canada that's the same idea; the US doesn't seem to have privacy laws as robust as other areas. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources identified by Ravenswing. @ SportingFlyer: a comment in good faith as you appear unaware: it's not at all hard to get around GDPR restrictions - free VPN services are readily available and more than adequate to check US news sites. FWIW, I don't feel there's community consensus on the application of "routine coverage" here ... there's a lot of devil in that detail and nothing explicit in WP:ROUTINE that includes elections. Coversely, elections almost by definition are routine so it's somewhat contradictory to claim that local election coverage is routine but say, US Presidential election coverage is not...what's significant in determining notability here is scale, not recurrance. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's fine - I was just noting I hadn't seen those articles. But I still stand that he's not notable - what exactly is he notable for? He lost an election where the winner had 18,000 votes, he won a very local election with 2,700 votes, he opted not to run for lieutenant governor. Is he notable because he works in the White House? Is he notable because someone wrote an article discussing his ADHD? Because those are the other two options, unless notability is simply "the local paper wrote one feature article on him."
    We also consistently delete unelected candidates for office for a number of different reasons. We even consistently delete articles on elected mayors who have only received local coverage. The fact any candidate will receive some level of ROUTINE coverage being only one of them. And if this particular article is scale over recurrence, there's no scale here. SportingFlyer T· C 13:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would emphasise the distinction between demonstrating notability through the existence of in depth reliable sourcing and demanding what a subject is notable for. The GNG/BASIC requires the former, not the latter. Asking questions such as "Is he notable because he works in the White House?" is misleading to the extent that the *sources* determine the answer to this, not our opinion of work in the White House. There are plenty of people working in the White House who lack indepth RS coverage, ipso facto, no article. On the other hand, people working in the White House with in depth coverage in multiple RS are notable by our guidelines. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I agree with Goldsztajn that the reason why someone garners enough coverage to meet the GNG does not matter -- the community has consistently declined to limit GNG passes to only those purportedly "worthy" of receiving media coverage.

    With that, c'mon. Yes, articles are deleted all the time of local politicians getting passing mentions in local weekly papers. I strongly disagree that we routinely delete subjects for whom feature articles can be found in Pulitzer Prize-winning publications with continental scope. Ravenswing 11:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Upgrading my comment to a delete. Koh fails WP:NPOL as someone who has only won very hyper-local election, so isn't de facto notable as a politician. The sources identified all have some problem with them.

In the article:

  • Boston Herald article is routine election night coverage for a primary recount;
  • Local election results aren't SIGCOV;
  • Boston Herald article talking about how he might run for lieutenant governor, which he ultimately didn't;
  • His biography from an organisation where he's a member, not secondary or SIGCOV;
  • An ADD blog where he talks about his struggle with ADHD;

In the AfD so far:

  • A Boston Globe article where he talks about his struggle with ADHD;
  • A Bloomberg Law article which is a short biography about how he moved to the White House;
  • A New York Times article where he's simply quoted;
  • His listing in a 40 under 40, which generally isn't considered for notability;

I cannot access sources about how he started marathon running.

On the whole, this looks like SIGCOV, but for what? In order to get him over the GNG line for being a politician you have to combine a feature article about how he has ADHD with an article about he might run for an office he didn't ultimately wind up running for, neither of which are related to the thing he's most wiki-notable for: losing a primary election. He's simply a failed candidate who hasn't made any sort of impact outside of being a failed candidate. SportingFlyer T· C 12:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

"One the whole this looks like SIGCOV" - so that's a pass of the GNG. NPOL is a positive test for inclusion; a subject does not fail NPOL the result of which provides justification for deletion, it simply means the criteria of NPOL are not satisfied for presumption of notability. Not satisfying NPOL does not mean all other criteria we use for assessing notability cannot apply. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 20:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
It's significant coverage of ...the fact he has ADHD? SportingFlyer T· C 20:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Where does the GNG require us to assess what the significant coverage is for? That's a content discussion, not a notability discussion. We have a subject with significant coverage, just because he's a minor political functionary/representative does not exclude him when he meets our notability criteria. NPOL contains presumptive inclusionary criteria, not exclusionary criteria. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, failed candidates getting deleted fall under WP:NOT, where someone can still receive coverage but not being notable enough for the encyclopedia. He's notable for being a failed political candidate. The wrinkle here is that there are two pieces of coverage outside the election which look okay, one talking about how me might run for a race he never ran in, the other profiling him for having ADHD, which wasn't about politics. I simply am applying common sense here and think that those two pieces of coverage aren't enough to make him a "notable" failed candidate. SportingFlyer T· C 14:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I think this discussion shows the challenge of relying on GNG to determine which subjects should receive a stand-alone page. I agree with SportingFlyer that the sources are not that significant - the Boston Herald article about a possible run really doesn't contain much information about the subject (despite the headline) - but if we add the ADDitude piece, I can see how we get to a technical GNG pass. That said, just because a subject may be notable, our guidelines do not require a stand-alone article be created. So, we have a subject that may just pass GNG, but may fail ten-year test of an international encyclopedia. - Enos733 ( talk) 17:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Leaving aside that is neither policy nor guideline, the consequence is nevertheless that deletion is not answer. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
No, WP:NOT is clearly a guideline we use, and there's several prongs of NOT this satisfies. SportingFlyer T· C 14:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
To clarify, I was referring to the ten year test. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 09:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weakest keep. I agree that WP:GNG is probably not a good guideline to apply here. I also don't think WP:NOT applies here to the failed candidacy, because the application of NOT would be NOTNEWS or NOTWHOSWHO, but if this person is notable, it's for multiple things, so these would not apply. For similar reasons BIO1E and BLP1E do not apply.
So the remaining question, I think, is: is this person notable, under WP:BIO as a moderately successful politician who is ADHD?. The politics and ADHD are linked in this only-partially-secondary source [58]. Because of the fact that we would have to rely on this type of source to connect the notable aspects, I'm just not quite sure. I slightly lean keep because WP:BASIC is explicitly flexible in pulling bits of notability from multiple sources, and we have no BLP or V issues, and no other NOT issues either. — siro χ o 07:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Moderately successful is a huge stretch, the only election he's won he won with 3,000 votes. SportingFlyer T· C 18:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. BLP of a politician whose political accomplishments are near zero, now on staff of another politician. We don't need articles like these.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete, deputy cabinet secretary isn't notable from what I can see. I don't really care what the mental health issue the person has, it really has no bearing on notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Chief of staff to the mayor of Boston isn't notable, the person that held his Federal deputy cabinet secretary post doesn't have an article, these combined don't equal notability. High level assistant staffer perhaps in both cases. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I see at least three sources meeting GNG: the cited Herald article, the cited ADHD article, and the Globe article linked by Siroxo. GNG is the controlling policy here regardless of if NPOL is met. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:02, 6 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Tanja Tatomirovic

Tanja Tatomirovic (  | 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:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Seems to be a lady doing her job. scope_creep Talk 09:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Serbia. Shellwood ( talk) 11:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete Resume-like career summary. The only links I find are [59] and [60], an author summary and a Forbes Council page, both of with don't help the PROMO aspect here. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Photo is credited to the LBS Team, which has a marketing feel, thus another red flag. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep Considering there is enough content and enough references backing up the content and advising who she is, she is as relevant as many other articles that have meaningless information and those articles are still on Wikipedia. Боки ✉ 00:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Quantity of references aren't a criteria in notability. Your comment about about other articles, is an argument avoid in WP:AFD. If you have WP:THREE reference that indicate the person is notable, post them up so they can be examined. scope_creep Talk 13:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Scope creep I am not attacking anyone personally but as an example, having bunch of association football profiles for players who play in third tier football and will (probably) never move out of it, for me personally, is waist of Wikipedia space. As @ Oaktree b said, I'd rather see some good articles but it is what it is.
Maybe @ Nikibgd can help us elaborate as to what was the purpose of creating Wiki page other than self promotion on high domain authority website.
Боки ✉ 00:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
no idea why it was created. In fact, Tatomirovic also reached out to the person who created it and that user had no particular reason to create it. Ultimately, I think she's just following her online rep, noticed the page, and decided to make an effort to keep it. Haven't asked why and, considering her already big media exposure in Serbia, not sure how it would benefit her career additionally. Nikibgd ( talk) 12:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
With this response, I am editing my response to delete as it really means nothing and there was no purpose of creating this page. Боки ✉ 23:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Боки: In that case since your changing your !vote, I would score out your keep !vote by enclosng it is <s></s> tags so the closing admin knows you have changed it. I would put a wee note next to it as well explainng it scope_creep Talk 07:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply
for clarity - Tatomirovic doesn't personally know the user who created this page and hadn't been in contact with them until now. Nikibgd ( talk) 12:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is full of meaningless information, but so long as it's well-sourced, it can stay. I wouldn't call most memes noteworthy, but they have articles and can stay. My opinions on the subject don't change how notability works for Wikipedia. I would love to see more articles about human history rather than the latest tik tok fad, but it is what it is. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
It is not well sourced though. We will go through the references. scope_creep Talk 15:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Agree that the first draft was not well-sourced and did not adhere to Wikipedia standards for living person's bio/page. Full disclosure: I know the person about whom this page is through our professional network and she reached out to me - she claims not to have created the page or asked for the page to be created, but would like it cleaned up and to remain. So I took her bio, significantly copyedited, reformatted, and tried to pull as many quality links as I could. Since she's been a PR pro for several major companies, it's difficult to parse what to include and what not to. Tried to keep it simple. Apologies if this throws a wrench in your review of the references, but I'll be around and happy to help remove or add anything that's needed! Nikibgd ( talk) 15:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
No wrenches have been thrown. Being a PR Pro doesn't make you you notable. It is a the most banal and generic article of somebody doing there job. Your just a chancer. We will have a look at the references. scope_creep Talk 03:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah, the original ref sources sucked. And I did a poor job fixing that the first time around. This time, I did much better. In short, Tatomirovic is pretty well known in Belgrade societal and definitely professional circles. I sifted through the hundreds of PR statements she's made for others and have found several interviews in highly regarded Serbian media specifically about her, her book, etc.. I'll go through all of the refs and my rationale in using/keeping them.
Ref 1 [1] Passing mention of Tatomirovic in an old TV report, but thought I'd keep it because the experience of students and journalists under S. Milosevic in Serbia was "interesting" to put it mildly. Also cool with having it removed though.
Ref 2 [2] Link to Tatomirovic's book description on goodreads.com for added info, also cool for having this removed.
Ref 3 [3] Interviews with Tatomirovic about her book in Politika newspapers online version. Politika is the oldest newspaper still being published in the Balkan region and the paper of record in Serbia.
Ref 4 [4] Article in PCPress announcing Tatomirovic joining the Forbes Comms Council. PCPress is one of the most popular monthly magazines in Serbia, established in 1995.
Ref 5 [5] Interview in Pancevo, Serbia local media about Tatomirovic's love of dogs, which I only included as a reference because it mentions details of her private life and that she lives between Serbia and Germany.
Ref 6 [6] Another link from PCPress, this time an interview with Tatomirovic. Only included as reference for fun fact that she had a novel character based on her, although that factoid is also available in the Wikipedia article about the author of said novel, Igor Marojevic.
Removed all potentially PROMO references. Nikibgd ( talk) 21:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
These are even worse that ones you had before. Forbes council is paid for. Anybody can join. Goodreads is social media and is non-rs. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY. Passing mentions can't be used prove notability. She is plainly non-notable. scope_creep Talk 08:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Lets examine the references 1-7
  • Ref 1 [61] Profile and vlog selling herself. It is plain advertisement that any business person would do. It is WP:SPS source. It is WP:PRIMARY.
  • Ref 2 [62] TV news archive. It is a passing mention at best.
  • Ref 3 [63] This the ladies blog. It is WP:SPS source.
  • Ref 4 [64] "The spokeswoman of the Higher Commercial Court in Belgrade, Tanja Tatomirović" Another passing mention and WP:PRIMARY.
  • Ref 5 [65] "Tanja Tatomirović, PR of that company, confirmed for Danas." That is another passing mention. It is WP:PRIMARY even though it is junk.
  • Ref 6 [66] Paid role. I could join. Is non-rs.
  • Ref 7 [67] A story written by Tatomirovic.

There is either primary sources, SPS sources or passing mentions. They are really poor mentions. They are particularly poor and none of it constitutes a claim to notability. scope_creep Talk 03:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Can't argue with most of this. And thanks for reviewing the sources and the clarity on that here. Appreciated your time on this, for real. What I can say is that Tatomirovic, due to her visible roles, is a visible and known figure in Serbian media. Which, as you said, just means she's doing her job well. However, she's also a staple of the Belgrade "scene" and has a novel character based on her. All of this doesn't mean she's notable outside of Serbia. So not sure how that applies to English-language Wikipedia. Anyway, I'll try to dig up two or three more sources from established media that are more than a passing mention and will then leave it up to you guys. Nikibgd ( talk) 12:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I have previous mentioned in this discussion that I know Tatomirovic personally through professional circles, as well as that she reached out to me regarding this article and that I was in touch with her. I believed this to be enough of a COI disclosure and didn't want to take up any more room here. However, @ Scope creep has pointed out that my conflict of interest needs clarification. Here it is.
While I am a communications consultant that gets paid, among other things, for online reputation management consulting, I am NOT being paid to participate in this discussion or to keep this article up.
Have I consulted for Tatomirovic in the past? Yes. Will I be receiving any remuneration from anyone dependent on whether or not this article is removed or kept? Absolutely not.
And because I know Tatomirovic, as previously disclosed, I have refrained from voting keep/delete or expressing any opinions of my own, and am doing my best to simply contribute to the article. Nikibgd ( talk) 09:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete promotional CV-like article, it's not clear why she would be notable enough for Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T· C 12:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The keep !vote above has been turned into a delete !vote by editor Боки. scope_creep Talk 07:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Umbro Cup

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

Unreferenced, does not explain why this event meets WP:GNG. My BEFORE shows some passing mentions but nothing that would help to show how this was significant. An WP:ATD could be a redirect to Umbro, although I cannot suggest any merge given lack of references. This marketing stunt is also not mentioned in the target article, which would be a prerequisite for a redirect... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Japan, Sweden, England, and Brazil. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (Edited:Per added sources from ChrisTheDude) Article is not unreferenced, has external links to YouTube videos which count towards notability and two at the bottom ( [68]). I have a slight problem here with the title, there were in fact multiple different cups sponsored by Umbro, this one might need the year adding to it. As you have results like this ( [69] which shows other Umbro Cup Tournaments.) Also [70], [71], [72], [73], I must admit that results on the web are poor. However I'd expect there will be published WP:OFFLINE materials. Newspaper searches haven't been done here either and I expect that to have results as well. It's not a marketing stunt, it's a rehearsal tournament for UEFA Euro 1996 as stated in the article. So part of your delete nomination is floored in argument. And @ GiantSnowman:, is it possible you can stop posting the same thing over and over again at AfD like some generic bot? It gets tiresome and irksome to see that. Thank you. Govvy ( talk) 09:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • @ Govvy: - I just added half a dozen newspaper sources. There will be lots more but I really need to get back to work...... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 10:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      Lots of match reports from the tournament - where is the significant coverage? Giant Snowman 18:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      Genuine question, what sort of significant coverage can there be of a tournament other than detailed reports of the matches that constitute said tournament? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 18:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep lots of reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest ( talk) 07:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the proposed sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the tournament itself wasn't really that important, but there's easily enough coverage to have an article on it. SportingFlyer T· C 12:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Multiple reliable sources present in the article, this wasn’t any kind of marketing stunt, just your standard sponsorship deal. Similar to the Audi Cup. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 15:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

1985 Azteca 2000 Tournament

1985 Azteca 2000 Tournament (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, does not explain why this event meets WP:GNG. My BEFORE shows some passing mentions but nothing that would help to show how this was significant. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Germany, England, and Mexico. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think it's likely that newspaper articles could be found if anyone has access to the proper databases (and languages), but as an alternative to deletion Merge both this article and 1985 Ciudad de México Cup Tournament to 1986 FIFA World Cup for which these were preparatory events. Jahaza ( talk) 17:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Assuming sources are found to confirm they were prep events, sure. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The games in Mexico City got a lot of coverage, because Italy and England faced off in the immediate aftermath of the Heysel Stadium disaster.
    European Stars and Stripes, 9 June 1985, pg. 24-25, "Brazil, Iraq, Costa Rica remain in World Cup Race," by AP:
    "Aztec Stadium is going through a World Cup rehearsal with a two-week series of soccer matches among Italy, Mexico, West Germany, and England through June 15.
    "Italy defeated England, 2-1, last Thursday amid a wave of concern about crowd violence at soccer matches. Thirty-eight spectators, mostly Italian, died May 29 in rioting at the European Cup Club Championship between Liverpool and Juventus of Turin in Brussels.
    "Eight Mexican fans died May 26 at Aztec Stadium when the crowd stampeded at the National League championship match. The biggest disaster occurred May 11 in Bradford, England, when the soccer stadium caught fire, causing more than 50 deaths.
    "Yet Mexican soccer officials, immersed in the complex preparations for the mammoth 1986 event, say they are convinced Mexican fans will not pose any problems. Mexico hosted the 1970 World Cup and it is remembered as a joyous sports festival." [74]
    Also: Jones, Stuart. "Football: Francis Worried About Safety Of Family." Times, 1 June 1985, p. 32. The Times Digital Archive. [75]. There's several articles just in the UK Times about this trip.
    Reuters, "Soccer Security Tight" 7 June, 1985 [76]
    Vince Leah, "'Kaiser Franz' throws water on hopes," Winnipeg Free Press, 23 June 1985, "Off to Mexico [Germany] went for a pre-World Cup festival and were well-beaten by an English team which had shown little in recent outings.
    "Then Mexico made Beckenbauer sound like a prophet... England went on to lose both to Italy and Mexico in this event..." etc. [77]
    I haven't even looked at German, Italian, or Mexican newspapers. Jahaza ( talk) 03:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Good finds. For now I think we have enough to say redirect and mention this event there, unless there's content there to improve this article? Unfortunately, right now, "Azteca 2000" is not mentioned at 1986 FIFA World Cup at all... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], mention in a book. Come on now, there are loads of hits, more than this. I can't be bothered to put them all down. There are probably newspaper archives I haven't looked at. Sorry, but if I found all of that in 10 min then your WP:BEFORE sucks, if I had a good hour I'd post everything I found. There seems to be a lot of different sources, some talking historically about the tourney, others talking about match histories and history to Mexico 86 World Cup. There is enough to easily pass GNG ( WP:BASIC). @ GiantSnowman: please, don't count your chickens!! :/ (edit: Not to mention you said Unreferenced in your nomination, however there are three external links to YouTube in the report section you have ignored, those count towards notability also. ) Govvy ( talk) 09:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I didn't say it was unreferenced! If you expand the article please ping me and I'll re-review. Giant Snowman 18:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep or merge as above - the article as it exists is horrible but it's definitely a notable topic based on the sources presented here (though not all of the sources definitively show notability). Also would have appeared in Mexican newspapers, not currently listed here... SportingFlyer T· C 13:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per reasons given above. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 15:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - @ GiantSnowman:, Per above. Clearly notable tourmament with many sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 17:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Tatar Wikipedia

Tatar Wikipedia (  | 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)

Unnotable wiki citing only primary sources. That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, Asia, Europe, Russia, and Turkey. QuickQuokka [⁠ talk • contribs 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not going to copy this comment to all the AfD nominations that are of language wikis, but it feels to me like even if non-notable the information is useful to have on en.wiki. I don't feel strongly about it, but generally I would rather redirect to [ [85]] (if that was possible, idk) than delete. JMWt ( talk) 06:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment I'm not convinced these articles are that useful, but this mass-nomination will be very time consuming, and when you drill down the editor doesn't appear to have followed WP:BEFORE.
    Tatar Wikipedia gets a bunch of Google Scholar hits, mostly as a source of data, but some substantive, for example [86]. Sorani Kurdish Wikipedia, also nominated, is discussed in some news articles, e.g. [87] [88].
    Do we have to let the entire AfD process run on these? Maybe WP:SKCRIT#3 applies ("The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided."? Oblivy ( talk) 07:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It did occur to me that there seems to be a good chance of coverage in non-English media too. JMWt ( talk) 08:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R — siro χ o 06:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I suggested a redirect to the wikimedia page above, I wonder if that might be kept up-to-date more regularly than the one you suggest on en.wiki JMWt ( talk) 08:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Redirect I'm happy with either of the options, probably leaning a bit towards @ Siroxo's proposal as it's a more informative list for the reader. I did a few pageview analyses, and a couple of users search for these language wikis each day so they're not without their audience. Oblivy ( talk) 08:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Redirect is the right choice. No need for a separate article. Athel cb ( talk) 12:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I took a quick look at the Tatar version of this Wikipedia page and checked through the sources cited, of the 8 total listed, 4 of them were from websites that did not appear to be affiliated with Wikipedia, I wasn't able to verify what exactly was said within the articles as I do not speak Tatar nor does the Google Translate extension for translating websites work with the Tatar language (despite the fact that Google Translate does support English to Tatar translations and vice versa) So that is why I would have to say keep it instead and pull sources from the Tatar page. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 14:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I can't help but notice that when one clicks on List of Wikipedias, the very reasonable alternative to deletion offered above, the first thing one is presented with is a banner placed almost a year ago complaining that the article is too long and asking that it be broken up into sub-articles. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've been working on the length for the last several days. It's much better now. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 03:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This looks like the start to a good article. Also, when writing about Wikipedia, using Wikipedia as a source is allowed. As stated in WP:NOTSOURCE:

    An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views and inappropriate self-referencing).

    Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 03:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, thank you, there is a big potential into turning the article into big and good one. Just look at its Russian version to see how it can go. Russian version is more elaborated, but still a way smaller that it deserves to be. It is just a matter of time. Tatar Wikipedia (and Bashkir) are outstanding in a way how it is promoted among "regular" people. There are not many Wikipedias that have support from mass media, state insitutions, including scientific institutions. Tatar Wikipedia (and Bashkir) are viewed as a way to preserve language and culture, and lot of efforts were made into that. BTW, note the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikigrannies that was saved from AFD just today. -- ssr ( talk) 12:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I can tell that the "Keep" votes stem from the fact that the debate is about over an article about an edition of Wikipedia, and like Pokémon, you gotta catch 'em all. — theMainLogan ( t• c) 01:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC) 21:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I said "keep" below but I don't understand your comment. Perhaps you could explain more simply for people like me who have never played Pokemon or read any delete proposals for other language Wikipedias. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems divided between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Bing Translator has Tartar but as far as I know you have to copy/paste the text and manually select Tartar in the drop down list. It translate the first section as "Tatar Wikipedia (lat. tat. Tatar Wikipediase) is the Tatar-language section of Wikipedia. In terms of the number of articles among Wikipedia in Turkic languages, Turkish ranks second only to Wikipedia. It opened on September 15, 2003, and originally operated with only the Latin alphabet. Today, the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets are used in tatar Wikipedia on equal rights. [1] The majority-accepted name of the Tatar language section - "Tatar Wikipedia" - states only the language of writing articles, not that it belongs to any ethnic group or state." Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now as tedious to translate the Tartar version at present. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep immediately. One of the most active participators and promoters of Tatar Wikipedia is Farhad Fatkullin, Wikimedian of the Year 2018. Tatar Wikipedia is one of the most developing, mass-promoted and outstanding language editions of Wikipedia in languages of Russia. There is vast press coverage about it, and also academic coverage can be found. The article is just old and small, it has to be just expanded, not deleted. -- ssr ( talk) 09:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    P. S. I have added more sources -- ssr ( talk) 12:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mauro Montacchiesi

Mauro Montacchiesi (  | 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)

SPA writing under the name of the subject in the biography. Promotional and poor quality article. Molochmeditates ( talk) 04:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Italy. Shellwood ( talk) 08:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Dear Sirs,
    Good morning, everybody.
    I say good morning because, in Italy, it is 04:47 a.m.
    I consider myself a serious person and professional.
    For me, having a page on Wikipedia is an honor and a joy.
    Recently, on my page, I posted some official links.
    These links have all been deleted, and I even read that you want to delete my page.
    Why this prejudice against me?
    Before deleting the links I place, and closing my page, I ask that my links be analyzed and verified for their source and content.
    I understand that they are in Italian and, therefore, can hardly be understood, but there are translators for people of good will.
    I give some paradoxical examples: In the “Biography” section, I had entered:
    https://accademiatiberina.it/cerimonie/198-anno-cerimonia-di-inaugurazione/
    https://accademiatiberina.it/cerimonie/198-anno-rassegna-fotografica/#iLightbox%5Bgallery_image_1%5D/55
    These are the links to the inauguration of the 198th academic year (2010), during which I was awarded the prestigious title of academician. You have deleted everything. Do you want to question the prestigious Tiber Academy?
    In this regard, I also included a Wikipedia link:
    https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accademia_tiberina
    You have also deleted yours.
    Immediately after, you find Giuseppe Gioachino Belli written in blue.
    This link is old; I still need to put it in.
    This is a Wikipedia link:
    /info/en/?search=Giuseppe_Gioachino_Belli
    Doesn't this seem like a paradox?
    This is fine; the one I inserted is not by Wikipedia policy?
    And again, in order not to go on too long, I will mention only three examples of links that you have unilaterally removed:
    https://www.concorsiletterari.net/rassegna-stampa/verbale-ufficiale-di-giuria-le-nove-muse-2023/
    This is a public record officiating the awarding, to me, of a prestigious Critics' Award for the Mauro Montacchiesi book, "The Star on this July Night" (Amazon Publishing).
    https://www.lagazzettadimassaecarrara.it/brevi/dedicato-un-libro-in-lingua-inglese-a-marina-pratici
    This is a newspaper. The Gazzetta of Massa and Carrara
    The article is in Italian, and I cannot translate it because it is printed.
    However, if you read well:
    The volume is entitled "Tribute to the Artist Marina Pratici" and is the work of Mauro Montacchiesi, an Italian poet who lives and works in Rome.
    -
    https://www.accademiapoesiarte.it/2020/10/02/poesia-2020-mauro-montacchiesi/
    https://www.accademiapoesiarte.it/
    This is the International Academy of Signification Poetry and Contemporary Art.
    Look and check well the logos of the sponsorships: Public University Roma Tre, Regione lazio, Roma Capitale, Italian Cultural Institute New York, Municipality of Canale Monterano.
    You have deleted these as well. Why?
    I could give so many more examples, all well-founded and substantiated, of official links that you have deleted.
    Again, I have included details of some books that I published in 2022.
    They are all books with regular ISBNs and deposited at the National Library in Florence.
    The ones that I entered are not good; the earlier ones, which I did not enter, are fine.
    At the top of my page, I read:
    This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
    Since no one is doing this, I try to do it, but I am regularly boycotted.
    I leave it up to you to examine and decide on the case.
    Best regards.
    Mauro Montacchiesi MAURO PAOLO PIETRO ( talk) 03:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Hello!
I have included links from journal articles that concern me, and there are already others that I have not included, but others have.
I have entered several books I published with related ISBNs, and others have not, but other people have.
These are official items found online.
Why do you want to close my page?
Sincerely. MAURO PAOLO PIETRO ( talk) 16:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • @ MAURO PAOLO PIETRO, to answer your questions, we have rules that govern article retention. In particular, refer to the detailed information in these guidelines: WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:COI.
WP:COI: You are not allowed to edit your own biography. This is to protect Wikipedia's integrity against self-interested editing.
WP:BIO: The article has to demonstrate that you are notable as defined by WP:BIO above; you may disagree with those notability criteria but they're the rules of this website.
WP:RS: Any claims this article makes about you have to be backed up with citations to references that meet the WP:RS guideline.
Presently, this article does not meet our notability requirements based on the references in the article.
I'm sure you're a very good poet. If it's any consolation, most of the world's very good poets aren't notable by our rules. They have not gotten the substantial, in-depth coverage required.
Ultimately, notability on Wikipedia is more about vagaries of media coverage by reliable sources than merit. We're an encyclopaedia diligently compiled by a group of amateur volunteers. We're compiling information from around the world for our articles; we're not forming or imposing our own opinions.
I'm sorry I have to tell you this; I know it's a disappointment. Please don't take it personally - this is just a really big website, and we're not poetry experts.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my response to Mr. Montacchiesi above. I'll also note that he does not have an article on the Italian Wikipedia that I could find; there is no it:Mauro Montacchiesi.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Despite the flurry of new editors at this AFD and the improper borderline personal attacks, I see a consensus here to Keep this article which has been subject to extensive editing since this AFD was nominated. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Anita Bobasso

Anita Bobasso (  | 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 significant coverage of subject, even in reliable sources native to subject. No major achievements during career have been presented. Fails WP:NACTOR. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Copying over comments from @ Ragazzodeitalia: at the talk page:

It is a biography of a singer of typical Argentine "tango" songs, very famous in the last century and that can be verified in the dozens of links in her bio, despite the fact that at that time there was no press like there is now... without Yet she had it. after 25 years she died press is still talking about her as this article of 2020 https://www.historiadealagoas.com.br/antonio-hugo-da-silva-o-boemio-maestro-antonio-paurilio.html Please help me so that it is not deleted, I am an old man and I don't know how to do it. very thankful Ragazzodeitalia ( talk) 12:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Gaelan 💬 ✏️ 13:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
ANITA BOBASSO biography SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. there is dozens of external links to archives of newspapers and magazines talking about her in a epoque that press was not plenty. it will be unfair to do it with a famous dead person loved by her public. please help to do not delete it and protect it. thank you very much. Alfredomaraw ( talk) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Anita Bobasso for what I am reading I believe the editor requesting deletion has a personal problem with the subject because there is not reason. This should NOT BE DELETED. I also noticed the subject is from 19 century an merits respect. In her bio there are dozens of verifications to external links archives. All of them mentioning Anita as the "Argentinian star" and everybody agrees that she was a very famous TANGO singer. It will be insulting to remove her. Also, the editor is including the deletion request in everywhere he can obviously showing that there is a problem? Editors should help to this biography do not be deleted. thank you ! Gustavo Ravanes ( talk) 14:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm sympathetic, but the refs aren't great, and she doesn't as yet have a bio on either Spanish or Portuguese wp. Johnbod ( talk) 15:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    thank you Johnbod for being sympathetic with this. Some people does not understand that in the 19 century (even in the early 20 century) there was not press, magazine and newspapers like we have now!! Anita Bobasso was one of the most famous singers of tango as you can see in the dozens of links listed in her biography! they are from archives of course. and yes, there is a biography in spanish ( and in many others she is mentioned ). She was remembered just 3 years ago as the (Anita Bobasso the star of tango that the public asked her to sing over and over again the same song because they loved so much) as you can see in this modern publication of 2020 https://www.historiadealagoas.com.br/antonio-hugo-da-silva-o-boemio-maestro-antonio-paurilio.html
    Regarding a biography, YES, here is one in Spanish: https://ragazzoitaliano25.wixsite.com/anitabobasso
    and she is always mentioned in most press of his famous actor grandson all the time. I would like to protect the bio from malicious people but I am 75 years old and its not easy for me to do it because I do not know much about wikipedia and how to defend myself from people.
    Please help me to respect her memory. Thank you very much in advance. Alfredomaraw ( talk) 18:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you believe that the young person that misrespected anita bobasso asking for deletion of her bio is now having a situation? I cannot believe he posted :"This user is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation."????
    how he will ask to a person from 19 century to have results on google search, books and else?? those did not exist back then!!! enough that this person was working until she was 100 years old!! and still showing in movies links and comments. If we take a look in newspapers archives there are TONES of articles about her!! that should be enough to let her rest in peace...her soul and her public that love and followed her... see in brazil newspapers archives how many articles to read about her: [89] http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/docmulti.aspxbib=%5Bcache%5Ddrummond_4518201294476.DocLstX&pasta=ano%20193&pesq=anita%20bobasso
    i DO NOT KNOW HOW TO REMOVE THAT DELETION REQUEST , BUT IT SHOULD BE DONE BY SOMEBODY THAT KNOWS HOW AND HAVE COMMON SENSE. THANK YOU!! GOD BLESS Antoniobara ( talk) 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm also sympathetic to this article, but inclined to agree there aren't substantial secondary sources. It looks like Bobasso is mentioned in Annuario teatral argentino: enciclopedia de la escena argentina ([ [90]]) in 1926, which may support a notability claim, but I am unable to access the full text to verify. ForsythiaJo ( talk) 18:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
YES! I did not even knew about all those links talking about Anita Bobasso !! Yes, she was also named ( alias) as "Anita del Plata" as you can see in those links because the "Rio de la Plata" (river) in Buenos Aires. That shows how famous she was by the press calling her that way! Anita Bobasso - Anita del Plata,meaning like a queen from Buenos Aires because the TANGO which is the trademark of Argentina and she was one of the most famous ones singing Tangos, that is why her success outside Argentina in Brazil and Europe. Please see all the dozens of links in her biography...there are links to the archives of dozens of newspapers commenting about her. Thank you Forsythia.JO!
this is the link that you just pointed: https://www.google.com/search?q=ANITA+BOBASSO&tbm=bks&hl=en&gl=us&ei=K2_3ZObpHtak5NoP5c24iA4&ved=0ahUKEwimq8bgiJSBAxVWElkFHeUmDuEQsJ4FCAM Alfredomaraw ( talk) 18:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
yes, in addition to the big amount of external links to newspapers archives in her bio, she is mentioned in google books, as Anita Bobasso and the name that her public and the press in that time called her "Anita del Plata" named after the river facing Buenos Aires city. https://books.google.com/books?id=8rIuAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=anita+bobasso
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS BIO. its from 19 century!!! Anita Bobasso please help to keep it and protect it. CAN AN EDITOR PLEASE REMOVE THE DELETION REQUEST? I do not know how to do it. thank you! Gustavo Ravanes ( talk) 19:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES ABOUT ANITA BOBASSOare available in Brazil newspapers archives !!! of course, she is from 19 century...google did not exist back then!! PLEASE SEE [91] http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/docmulti.aspx?bib=%5Bcache%5Ddrummond_4518201294476.DocLstX&pasta=ano%20193&pesq=anita%20bobasso
REMOVE DELETION REQUEST PLEASE. UNFAIR TOTALLY UNFAIR. Antoniobara ( talk) 21:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
KEEP IT. we must remember that the subject is 125 years old, when google search, news, books, etc even internet was not available. still there is a lot to find about this famous tango singer. Anita Bobasso Bio has more than enough external links in the archives of newspapers and magazines that can be accessed on this link: [92]
Please remove the deletion request. thank you! Alfredomaraw ( talk) 00:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
also a year 2020 article mentioning her and saying great things about her: https://www.historiadealagoas.com.br/antonio-hugo-da-silva-o-boemio-maestro-antonio-paurilio.htm
in movies: https://www.lavanguardia.com/peliculas-series/personas/anita-bobasso-3258466
other in movies: https://trakt.tv/people/anita-bobasso?sort=released,asc
other movie: https://www.rikrek.com/sk/osobnost/anita-bobasso/1289342/
http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx bib=572748&pesq=%22ANITA%20BOBASSO%22&pasta=ano%20193&hf=memoria.bn.br&pagfis=39128
AND TONES OF ARTICLES ABOUT ANITA BOBASSO IN BRAZIL NEWSPAPERS ARCHIVES: http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/docmulti.aspx?bib=%5Bcache%5Ddrummond_4518201294476.DocLstX&pasta=ano%20193&pesq=anita%20bobasso
It would be unfair to remove the bio of such a great tango singer!!
what should be removed is the request for "deletion" of this bio. GOOD HEART PEOPLE ACT AND REMOVE IT. Congratulations to whoever has a good heart and does it. This person is dead and cannot defend herself.
anita bobasso Antoniobara ( talk) 21:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • keep Per the Brazil newspaper archive link, and examples like this, it's reasonable to suppose that she was well known and regularly featured in the media of her time. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 21:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    please help to remove the deletion request. the person who requested it now saying this:
    "This user is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation".
    and i do not know how to remove it or how it work.
    I believe the person who did the bio will appreciate it. thank you! 2603:9001:2601:3A8A:28F8:1C31:7F96:1C86 ( talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Stop accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and stop WP:HOUNDing me! I am extremely upset over you and your comrades making ridiculous WP:ASPERSIONS against me in response to this AfD. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Non-English subject in the early 1900's are commonly difficult to find the right sources for, since much of their coverage isn't digitized and is only more easily discoverable by someone in the country of origin. But, with that noted, I still found significant coverage here and here. It's enough for me to say Keep, with work needing to be done on the article to properly shore up and properly represent the available references. Silver seren C 23:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Closer should be aware of the sock activity involved in this AFD deletion discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    *keep Thank you Liz. This is also the link to dozens of articles about "Anita Bobasso", as per the archives of newspapers and magazines back in the 1930's, in most of them she is mentioned as the "Argentina's star". the archive has a search box to search all about her, there are dozens of them.thanks again. [93] http://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/093262_02/12359 2603:9001:2601:3A8A:DC26:C67:9701:DD10 ( talk) 11:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    •keep As shown in the Brasilian "colecao digital de jornais e revistas da biblioteca nacional", website: memoria.bn.br ,there are more than enough links to articles in their archive about her. endless... [94] https://memoria.bn.br/DocReader/docmulti.aspx?bib=%5Bcache%5Dcamargo_47752009122866.DocLstX&pasta=ano%20193&pesq=anita%20bobasso Alfredomaraw ( talk) 11:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    •KEEP Anita Bobasso was a very famous tango singer and actress, her bio should be kept in wikipedia. regarding links, there are plenty as per google books she is listed in the Who is Who in the cinema and Spanish Theater" (quien es uien en el cine y teatro español) [95] and in the "annual theater Argentino Enciclopedia of the Argentina scene" (Annuario Teatral Argentino: Enciclopedia de la escena Argentina) [96]. Ragazzodeitalia ( talk) 13:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep since she made a recognizable contribution in a specific field (tango) and her music was featured in a major 1983 Argentine film. She is still mentioned in recent news sources even though she passed away in 1996. For context, she passed 5 years before Wikipedia was even created and she was born in the 19th century (born 1896).
Hiphopsavedmylife ( talk) 19:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

*::keep it pleaseI am fascinated reading the biography of this tango singer Anita Bobasso and the articles linked to it. Obviously her fans loved her. I can understand other languages and I was reading that in one oportunity the public asked her over and over to repeat the same song. beautiful experience, beautiful times back then.≈ Camte45

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Kansas USA#Titleholders. Liz Read! Talk! 17:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Alexis Railsback

AfDs for this article:
Alexis Railsback (  | 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 fails WP:GNG as a beauty pageant winner. Let'srun ( talk) 03:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to the pageant, she isn't notable outside that event. Trump's comments don't help the notability, and being quoted in Newsweek (as a non-RS), doesn't add to the discussion. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:51, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 01:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Miriam Katamanda

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Zambia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 03:15, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 01:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Judith Zulu

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Zambia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 03:12, 5 September 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. ✗ plicit 01:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Leadec

Leadec (  | 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)

First time doing AfD process, so sorry for anything I'm doing wrong. This article seems to fail WP:ORG because of a lack of significant coverage. Sources 1,2,3,6,11 are primary sources. Source 4 is an article largely written by the company CEO, which would make it fail independence. Sources 5 and 12 are seemingly press releases authored or co-authored by the company. Source 7 is no longer functional, and has no backup. The remaining sources (8,9,10) all seem okay, but none of them seem to give substantial coverage about Leadec outside of a single acquisition event per source; plus, sources 8 and 9 do not bring the strongest face forward for notability, neither being a nationally- or regionally-significant news source. In addition, a quick search of Leadec turns up no notable incidents which have been widely covered. There are also no easy merges or redirects which can be done, given that no important personnel within the company, nor companies which have acquired or been acquired by Leadec, have Wikipedia pages. Therefore, I believe the article for Leadec should be deleted. Leafy46 ( talk) 02:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Just another note - I also took a look at the German page for the company to see if it could be expanded, and it seems to suffer from the same problems. Specifically, it mostly relies on primary sources, and the other sources are a video which doesn't exist anymore and two online newspaper articles from seemingly small and unnotable sources. Leafy46 ( talk) 02:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Illy. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

FrancisFrancis

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

WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NOTCATALOG - Not a single source found from a BEFORE BrigadierG ( talk) 01:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. BrigadierG ( talk) 01:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I can find sources on particular models of their machines, but nothing about the company itself aside from catalogues trying to sell me one of their products. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 01:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to illy, (or just merge). When we remove the catalogue listings at the bottom, we are left with a few lines about the company. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (but maybe a weak keep with redirect/merge as an alternative to deletion) I'm pondering if there'll ever be enough for a standalone article or if it should be merged into Illy, which is surprisingly short to me so it may fit well. Some sources I found: It must've been something I ate: moderate mention/detail of and a positive review in a food book. Longer articles/reviews in newspapers (there are more capsule/short reviews that exist): [97] & [98] (talking about repairing espresso machine using the author's Francis machine), [99] stand alone review, [100] discussion in the context of Italian artistic things and includes mention of FrancisFrancis!'s plate set. Longer reviews: A 300+ word narrative review of a FrancisFrancis! machine. Mentions/minor case studies in text books/business books: [101], [102], [103]. (Passing reference but interesting to me: FrancisFrancis! on the Will and Grace set.) Skynxnex ( talk) 02:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please voice your opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Illy seems to be appropriate as per above Pranesh Ravikumar ( talk) 02:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy. It's a high threshold for a product to warrant its own article, which is not, in my opinion, met in this instance. There is nothing lost by having a redirect to the company page, which is certainly notable. If the product has sufficient discussion in secondary sources, a small sentence would be fine on that page. However, there is nothing of significance I can see regarding this particular machine that makes a merge vote worthwhile or practicable. The contents are largely not worth copying over. — MaxnaCarta  (  💬 •  📝 ) 02:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy, for the reasons given above. The article as it stands needs a citation needed on almost every line, as it is full of unsupported statements. As for the "Interesting facts" section, interesting for whom? Athel cb ( talk) 08:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Illy as per ATD, totally agree with the reasons provided above. The references are insufficient for GNG/NCORP criteria in any case. HighKing ++ 12:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Danielle Poleschuk

Danielle Poleschuk (  | 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:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only 1 gnews hit and only primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 01:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak delete Not much of anything found [104] has a brief mention. This interview [105]. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
She finished 19th at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics and got some media attention here, but hardly anything. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. All links to ProQuest. I think this individual meets WP:SPORTSBASIC. There's some standard sports interview articles that also confirms background details and provides some depth of secondary coverage [106] [107]. There are dozens of articles with brief coverage about sporting achievements on ProQuest. Third place (podium finish) at a World Cup event, 2010. [108] [109]. Third place finish in Canadian Skiing Championship event [110]. First place in one event at "Pontiac GMC cup" (canadian ski event), 2006, [111], third place in a different event at that cup [112]. Another win in an earlier year [113], third place yet another year [114]. — siro χ o 04:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    The first two links are interviews that contain some background but really don't have the depth to counter the rather routine "human interest" nature of the pieces. All of the other links are to passing mentions in routine event recaps and contribute nothing to notability. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per my argument above. I do not see GNG being met.
JoelleJay ( talk) 16:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per new coverage found.
JoelleJay ( talk) 21:13, 7 September 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! 01:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mir Syed Mohammad Baqir Mosavi Kirmani

Mir Syed Mohammad Baqir Mosavi Kirmani (  | 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)

References are not notable, and the first 2 do not pass WP:V (Google search turns up nothing). The last 2 link to Facebook, not a reliable source. Therefore does not pass WP:GNG - Rich T| C| E-Mail 01:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Ratul Khan

Ratul Khan (  | 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 in-depth coverage. only statistical. hasn't played for a big team either. X ( talk) 00:47, 5 September 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 Sponsorship scandal. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Jean Lafleur

Jean Lafleur (  | 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 issues. Cursory online search reveals coverage was not sustained, and his role in the scandal could probably be merged to Sponsorship scandal Bremps ... 00:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge to the scandal is fine. Brief media coverage at the time, nothing since that I see. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There's also some coverage of his bankruptcy filing about a year after the conviction. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to sponsorship scandal. His role in the scandal itself is relevant and well-sourced enough to be covered in that context, but that isn't and of itself a reason why he would need a standalone BLP as a separate topic from the scandal. Essentially, this is a WP:BLP1E in its current form, but nothing else here is demonstrating independent notability for other reasons outside of said 1E. Bearcat ( talk) 16:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Take on Wall Street

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

One source given. No sustained (or any) coverage found online, failing notability. Bremps ... 00:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete No coverage for whatever this group was at the time (assuming a political lobby, but the article isn't clear). Occupy Wall Street, yes, not this outfit. One whole source doesn't help. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete or possibly a weak Merge. This needs substantially more coverage to be notable, and even then, mentioning them in the article about the Occupy movement is probably sufficient. Cortador ( talk) 13:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guinea. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

David McIlroy

AfDs for this article:
David McIlroy (  | 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)

Last AfD was no consensus. Analysis by Timothy in last AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McIlroy indicates sources are not sufficient. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 00:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. LibStar ( talk) 00:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guinea, I concur with the analysis in the last AfD that the seemingly solid Belfast Telegraph ref is in fact an interview, and thus a primary source. All other sources I could find were either also primary sources or were passing mentions, with the possible exception of this in Africa Intelligence, which is behind a paywall and would not be enough to pass GNG by itself in any case. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guinea. I am in full agreement with the nom's rationale and the past source analysis of the last AfD. Additionally, I also found this but it's, again, a short message from McIlroy leaving office. The find by Devonian Wombat regarding the Africa Intelligence piece is interesting, but McIlroy doesn't seem to be at the heart of the article, so I doubt it can count towards the GNG. I also found this but it's pretty much just McIlroy's parting words. Pilaz ( talk) 14:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Africa. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Egness Tumbare

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

The subject has earned at least seven caps for the Zimbabwe women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Yet again, an American decides to choose to judge us Africans by Western standards. If you want sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, then come and purchase our local newspapers that are printed and sold in the streets of Zimbabwe. Not everything we do is put on the internet. Mangwanani (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I could not find find significant coverage, only social media posts referencing Tumbare. Mangwanani's comment is an understandable frustration but the sourcing here needs to be verifiable. Simply claiming print coverage exists isn't enough - What articles? When were they published? What newspaper? If sources can be shown, I will gladly change my vote. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 16:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 5 September 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_September_5&oldid=1175205723"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE