Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 12	August 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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!} 23:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocarlo Smith[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Flemming[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Liddie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Fiedtkou[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rush (actor)[edit]

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

Lacks significant, independent coverage. Sources amount to publicity, interviews, and an article about a drug-related arrest 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Bodybuilding, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Doesn't meet GNG. Hargovindkhurana (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anee Icha[edit]

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

This actress and "personality" does not meet notability criteria for WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC. The article sourcing is of poor quality: unreliable (BellaNaija),;a photo caption that mentions her name; non-indepth coverage, or doesn't mention her at all. A WP:BEFORE search reveals social media; no SIGCOV. It's possible that in a few years she may be notable per WP standards, but at this time it's WP:TOOSOON. Bringing it here for the community to weigh in on. Netherzone (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nigeria. Netherzone (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are SO many articles similar to this created by the same user recently. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take it to ANI, they've had more than enough chances to abide by our notability and BLP policies. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content citing Bella Naija have been removed. There are still about 9 other references from punch, nation and vanguard ( all newspapers).the article is notable because Anne Icha has starred in many films and one of the popular one is Namaste Wahala, a bolly and Nollywood movie.

Aside that She is one of the female celebrities that held meeting at Lagos on ways to solve problem affect women in the movie industry which is the june edition of the Inkblot Women in Film (IWIF) lunch. (All well sourced).Tesleemah (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tesleemah, all four sources are simply name-checks with no editorial content. Simple mentions of her name are considered trivial, and do not count as Significant Coverage. This is how our guidelines describe significant coverage: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[2] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. Do you see how that is very different than the sources in the article? Simply being in a film does not make a person automatically notable, it is what actors/actresses do - it's run of the mill. We need substantial, in-depth independent coverage of a person to meet GNG or NACTOR. Netherzone (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear some voices from folks other than the nominator and page creator about this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails wp:GNG, wp:SIGCOV and wp:NACTOR. Nythar^T^.^C 00:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Netherzone's reasoning above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jelani Lawrence[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marley Ipinson-Fabien[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not particularly notable, apparently fails wp:GNG. Nythar^T^.^C 00:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Jeffers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is a challenging one with a good basis on which to presume sourcing, but language, sourcing access issue being a major challenge. Given the presumption and the actual one identified makes this a keep even if sufficient sourcing hasn't yet been added. Star Mississippi 14:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zahir Shah (actor)[edit]

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

All of the sources are about his death. Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 21:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Pakistan, and Punjab. Kadı Message 21:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:NACTOR. The subject appeared in at least 3 notable films, indicating a likely but lost press coverage. Insight 3 (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting: @Insight 3, you mention likely but lost coverage – what does that mean for us? If sufficient sources existed, but are gone beyond hope of rediscovering, how would that be interpreted? I mean, I am tempted to follow your assessment that he is notable, but am unsure how to "prove" it since I can't find sources either. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if the subject worked in over 600 films with at least 3 of them notable (and there might be more), then most probably he would have been mentioned in the local film magazines and newspapers from 1980s and 1990s. But unfortunately Urdu or Punjabi film sources have not been digitally preserved like English, hence we don't see them online. Insight 3 (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the likelihood that while this actor might have been in some notable films, reliable sources do not exist that can verify this fact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Found one Urdu source: Daily Pakistan. Insight 3 (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Insight 3, quite notable actor from past known for his villainous roles. Muneebll (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Insight 3. KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Johnson (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soho Radio[edit]

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

Online-only radio station. Only one non-primary reference given - the rest are self-links to the station's own website. Most of the article is a list of people who have appeared on the station as guests at some point. Flip Format (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from one newspaper mention in the context of prohibition in 1926 here (joke), there are several other sources available. I'm unsure about this one and that one, but these seem fine: DJ Mag, Evening Standard, another Evening Standard, Guardian & Guardian again. Sources currently in the article are bad, I agree, but with these new ones I believe we have WP:SIGCOV. As a sidenote, there's also WP:BEFORE ;) --LordPeterII (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NORG thanks to the sources found by LordPeterII. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A GNG pass per the citations linked by LordPeterII. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NORG with sources added to the article by Rillington. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Williams (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – With such a common name, sources may be buried, but the fact that I could only find this trivial mention suggests that this is a fundamental failure of WP:GNG. User:SmackJam (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator. There is no significant coverage of this player. As a result, they do not meet the basic criteria set out in NSPORT and deletion is warranted. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Ropp[edit]

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

Local media personality. Does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are not independent or do not provide significant (in-depth) coverage. MB 19:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Oregon. MB 19:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kiss Network. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Dance[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Online-only radio channel. Sources are own website and/or minor mentions. Searching does not turn up anything more substantive. This should redirect to Kiss Network MB 19:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. MB 19:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This station does appear to be on a DAB broadcast multiplex rather than online-only, but I would agree that it needs to be redirected to Kiss Network as suggested, I don't think it has enough of its own original content or programming to justify its own article. The article itself states that programming is "non stop dance music" and it has "no programming", making it a music stream rather than a radio broadcaster. Flip Format (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kiss Network per Nom and Flip Format. No original programming fails WP:NRADIO. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kiss Network. Fails WP:BCAST and WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yedioth Tel Aviv[edit]

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

Almost no information is provided about this local newspaper and, the little there is, is hopelessly outdated. It is best redirected to its parent, Yedioth Ahronoth. These are basically the local pages of Yediot Ahronot (modern spelling) for Tel Aviv. Yediot's article is far from development to the degree that an article for each newspaper section can be justified. gidonb (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Israel. gidonb (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom from Fear (organization)[edit]

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

Organization appears to be a local nonprofit similar in scope and activities to a local branch of Mental Health America or National Alliance on Mental Illness. Activities include providing gift bags to local psychiatric patients, promoting events of national advocacy organizations, and hosting support groups.[1] Their website is mostly an advertisement for an affiliated for-profit psychiatric services provider company. Daask (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Psychiatry, and New York. Daask (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no claim of notability and no sources provided. Andre🚐 23:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly A7 but I suppose that's a bit moot given it's already been 7 days. Article is entirely unencyclopedic and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to not be a company profile (I expect the SPA author likely has some form of COI), and I could not find sources that might be able to support such a rewrite. This belongs in their "About Us" page, not Wikipedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian Tribune[edit]

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

Non notable online newspaper. It says it was founded in 2002 as a printed broadsheet newspaper, then print edition was discontinued in 2011 and relaunched in 2018 but i was unable to verify this. I googled in Bangla and English but found nothing. There is zero third party source about this.

Looks like the page contain information taken from Asian Tribune, a Thai/Sri Lankan/Swedish e-newspaper that used to appear in print (e.g. founded in 2002 ... discontinued in 2011 etc)

It says it was relaunched in 2018 but domain data says it was registered on 2021-11-12 (around same time this article was created). Looks like a sneaky way to promote a non notable online news portal.

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after discounting the hits that clearly relate to Asian Tribune, I could find nothing of substance. The domain data presented by the nominator is also quite damning. Appears to fail WP:NWEB, GNG and ORG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Always best wishes with the nominator :) --Noman☆ (Talk) 14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Damnatio memoriae. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of condemned Roman emperors[edit]

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

This list has only had a single source since its creation in 2006. It appears to be WP:OR and probably Synth of a topic which is not commonly listed together—thus this list as an independent group of people appears to be non-notable. Aza24 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Aza24 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do think its a notable topic, but the article Damnatio memoriae covers it already. Maybe a list of emperors who had it happen to them could be a good Wikipedia page, this certainly isn't as its very very short, has no sources and no detail of why or when it happened.★Trekker (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source has had a source since 2006, it's right there in the section called "Sources". Richard75 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. Aza24 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a very long list, we could just add it to the Damnatio memoriae article. Richard75 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Damnatio memoriae. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Damnatio memoriae, the list is indeed short enough, and there are no sources to be found which could justify this as a separate list. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The problem is a dearth of sources. If we are to keep this, we would need to have added to it when the Senate condemned them and a source in each case. There is a short list in Damnatio memoriae, a slightly longer one in a category, but what is in this article is longer still. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want an individual source for each person on the list? A source for the whole list is sufficient. Richard75 (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If an editor would like to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Distelmans[edit]

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

This article was created in 2006 and has never had references. A discussion on the WikiProject Classical music page concluded that much of the information is dubious. Project members also concluded that this individual seems to have been a real violist, but that there is no where near enough substantial information to suggest notability (see Hucbald's analysis on the project page). Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the confirmation from the family member aside in the discussion mentioned above on the project page, I find nothing about we can use about this fellow. Confirmation he was a music teacher? [2], that's about it. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – one of the references I found in a Belgian academic site calls him "legendary", which is impressive, but otherwise I can't find anything to suggest that he's notable so far as the English Wikipedia is concerned. Tim riley talk 21:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My great-uncle on my mother"s side was a well-known viola-player, not a violin-player, he formed a string quartet with my grandfather and two other brothers playing string instruments before WW2.

Because he won the Prix de Rome alto he obtained a scholarship to study in London with one of the best viola players of that era after which he was appointed at a very young age to become one of the first professors at the Royal Antwerp Conservatory. The first higher education establishment in Flanders to employ Dutch as the language of instruction.

There used to be a newspaper clipping in the familly mentioning the name of his London teacher but this was lost so I can't be more informative about that for the time being.

He was noted because several Flemish composers graduated in his class, amonst whom Jef Maes, considered to be one of the most important post-war Flemish composers.

For this reason, his class was referred to as the 'composers class'

All this being well-documented by the Antwerp Conservatory.

Apart from his teaching at the Antwerp Conservatory, he was the main viola-player at the Orchestra of the Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp, which existed from the second half of the 19th century to the 1960s and was well-regarded for its performances of modern, contemporary music hence the attendance of several well-known composers.

The archives of this orchestra, no longer in possesion of the Antwerp Zoological Society are now kept in the Antwerp city archives and can be consulted.

His popularity between the wars with a wider audience in Antwerp can be attributed to the matinee concerts he gave in the open air music stand of the Antwerp Zoo. Napoleon Distelmans (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Nothing WP:NOTABLE here.--Smerus (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tony Bennett discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I Heard the Rain[edit]

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

Article lacks reliable sources. Sricsi (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tony Bennett discography. Back in the late '60s it seems like Tony went through a slump and many of his albums during that period were largely ignored by the media. Even via Google Books I can only find brief mentions of this album's existence, mostly in Tony biographies and a few compendiums of that era's jazz albums. Interestingly, modern jazzbos have complained about this exact same problem here: [3]. For us, the answer is to redirect. Note that the album's title is also a song that other jazz musicians have recorded. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep or redirect, but do not delete history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tony Bennett discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows only a handful of passing mentions in books. SBKSPP (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Duthie (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Does not disambiguate any articles, nor are there even articles that mention the two redlinked entries (which can be removed per MOS:DABRED). Contested PROD, so must go here now. MB 20:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 20:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that in its present form the dab can't stay. However, William Duthie (the politician) appears to be pretty obscure, so as soon as someone creates an article about one of the other people with the name (assuming they're notable), then we'll likely need to move the politician to a disambiguated title and make the primary title a dab page. Uanfala (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per MOS:DABRED. If anyone writes the redlinked articles it can be redisambiguated at that time Central and Adams (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as as unnecessary at this time. Per WP:D2D Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article' to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. As there is only one existing article, disambiguation isn't required unless and until the other articles are created. I had tagged it as WP:CSD#G14 which was removed because the article had been previously de-prodded, which I don't believe is relevant.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD; apologies for wasting everyone's time by using PROD instead of CSD; I failed to realize G14 would apply here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ti Nyein Minn[edit]

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

I have searched "တည်ငြိမ်မင်" as well as "Ti Nyein Minn" and "Ti Nyein Min" but not been able to find any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Since WP:NFOOTBALL has now been demoted, there is now no basis for keeping based on his alleged MNL appearances alone. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saw Naing Moe Aung[edit]

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

Original research article on an amateur Burmese footballer with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Article currently cited only to Facebook and Yangon United's website. Searching for his Burmese name "စောနိုင်မိုးအောင်" yields only News Eleven, which is a basic announcement of his release from a third tier Thai team. English language searches in Google News and DDG failed to yield anything useful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Femke (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somsak Thong-ar-ram[edit]

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

Barebones stub which merely recites that Thong-ar-ram was a Thai sprinter who competed in the 1956 Olympics. Thong-ar-ram was not remotely competitive in his event, finishing with the slowest time among all competitors in the 400 metres (roughly 7 seconds slower than the winning times) and failing to qualify for the quarterfinals let alone the semifinals or finals. Fails all applicable criteria: WP:SPORTBASIC (mandating at least one source with WP:SIGCOV, excluding database sources), WP:GNG (lack of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources), and WP:NOLYMPICS (not a medalist). Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails a lot of criteria, as listed above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Thailand. Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agustín Humberto Estrada Negrete[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mexico. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing, successes do not add up to any of the applicable sports guidelines, nor is GNG met. Star Mississippi 14:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Goodary[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria for sportsmen as per WP:NKICK, WP:NMMA, WP:NSPORT and WP:ANYBIO. The subject has not won any notable championships and there's a likelihood the article was created promotionally or WP:PAID. Lethweimaster (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick WP:BEFORE shows quite a bit of coverage through Persian news outlets and other sources.[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 22:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. But there is a scope for work on the tone and advertisement. BBSTOP (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just not understanding how this passes WP:NKICK, WP:NMMA, WP:NSPORT and WP:ANYBIO? The article is promotional, so that needs to be edited either way. But what notability is being determined here? Fad Ariff (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there is no claim to notability here. Losing record in all disciplines Muaythai, MMA, and Boxing, has not won any notable championships. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments He doesn't appear to have won a major title that would show notability and his professional record is underwhelming. At first glance there appears to be a lot of sources, but I've been going through them and am having trouble seeing what meets the WP:GNG criteria. There's fight announcements, results reporting, database entries, and interviews--none of which meet WP:GNG. Even some of the national news coverage, much of which consists mainly of results and interviews, is somewhat suspect in terms of independence. When I see things like "our fighter", I have to question that I'm getting unbiased information. I haven't gotten through every source, but so far it's not encouraging. It would be nice if those claiming WP:GNG would pick their three best examples so that the rest of us don't have to spend time slogging through a lot of sources that don't meet that standard. Also, I'd like to say that WP notability is not dependent on the author (who may or may not be have been paid or written promotionally). He only appears to have about 50 edits in his contribution list, so he may just be inexperienced (and I'd hate to discourage a new contributor). Papaursa (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is shamelessly promotional.Lethweimaster (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Meet WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:NKICK by a lot of reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.204.251.47 (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Clearly does not meet WP:SPORTSPERSON "person has won a significant honor" - Subject has never won any significant honours. Entirely fails WP:NKICK. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above IP is evading a block and is not welcome around these parts. – ².O.^Boxing 07:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has won no significant titles and has never been ranked in the world top 10 so he fails to meet either of the notability criteria mentioned by the SPA above. Even with the Kyokushin World Tournament Open having been split into at least 4 or 5 competing factions (each with their own championship), I don't see any evidence of him being the world champion in any of them. An 8th place in one of them is not a "world champion". Will reconsider if reliable independent sources are provided for those accomplishments. Papaursa (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent, in-depth coverage. Sources listed above show no indication of meeeting WP:SIGCOV.Fails WP:GNG. Slywriter (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody has provided compelling evidence that WP:GNG is met. In fact, the more I waded through the sources, the worse it got. I found claims that were linked to references that had nothing to do with the claim. Many, if not most of his titles, were in youth divisions. His BBJ success was at the blue belt level, which is the next to lowest level and doesn't come close to meeting the WP:MANOTE standard of adult black belt success. I also found the article's tone very promotional and lacking a neutral point of view, although those alone are not grounds for deletion. I am willing to change my vote, should additional information come forth, but for now I am unconvinced of his WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 Cent Quest[edit]

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFO. The only notability claim on offer here is that it won a student film award, which would be fine if the film were properly sourced as having the media coverage to pass WP:GNG, but the only reference here is the award's own self-published press release. As always, "film notable because award" does not just automatically accept every single film award that exists -- it requires awards on the level of the Oscars, the AACTAs, the BAFTAs, the CSAs or an elite tier of internationally prominent film festivals which get media coverage, and does not extend notability freebies based on awards that have to be metareferenced to themselves because media coverage is lacking.
As I don't have access to any databases in which I could retrieve 20-year-old Australian media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to such resources can find the media coverage needed to salvage this -- but a student film award is not "inherently" notable enough to get a film into Wikipedia if a primary source press release is the only source it has. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do have access to 20+ year old media coverage and the only articles I could find were in The Macleay Argus (Kempsey regional newspaper); and two editions of the Australian Screen Education newsletter. Agree with nom: fails WP:NFO, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent sources to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mujawamariya Hyacinthe[edit]

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

Violation of BLP/GNG; unreliable sources. Attempts to find more information have yielded nothing. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello AirshipJungleman29,

I'm glad to see your message. I just don't understand well the problem you have with this article, because what I wrote is true and has reliable sources, this person is still there, so you may help me to clarify the problem you had. thank you. LandFull (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Rwanda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How are the sources unreliable? They appear to be genuine Rwandan news outlets, several of which say she is an actress well-known for her role in Haranira kubaho. Needs more specifics, I also don't understand the rationale here. --Canley (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage, a few mentions in local media does not amount to WP:SIGCOV. W C M_email 07:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found, the ones given are mentions in passing. She exists, but not much found that can be used here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. This should not have gone on this long. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<topic>|list of <topic>-related deletion discussions]]. <signature>

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. however, @Rugbyfan22:. please let me know if you'd like to continue working on this since you found some sourcing that could indicate GNG.Happy to provide in Draft Star Mississippi 14:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azur Allison[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby union player, who has not made it to professional level. Article creation was premature. He was in the Ulster Rugby youth academy for several seasons, made one senior appearance, and is no longer part of the academy. Nicknack009 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's a couple of sources here the could suggest a GNG pass. His appearances and his career here are irrelevant. Honestly if the guidelines we have today were in place when I created the article, I probably wouldn't have created it, but having done a reasonable search, there is a bit of GNG passing coverage, although I admit it's not much. Perhaps a redirect to 2019–20 Ulster Rugby season, the year he played his only notable fixture, would be a good solution here if others don't agree it's a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with the nom. ww2censor (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely any independent coverage, not close to meeting GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or relist I guess if we really need to retain this information. JoelleJay (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Campaign setting. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metaplot[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:OR. Intrestingly, the definition ended up being cited (and attributed to Wikipedia) in a RS (a book published by McFarland, p.118, footnote confirming the source is Wikipedia is on p.123]. Without the attribution this definition ("overarching storyline") also appears in this academic paper. The term does appear in few more (academic, reliable) sources but I can't find anything that meets WP:SIGCOV. Aside of the interesting case of almost WP:CITOGENESIS, I wonder if anyone can rescue this, or should be just delete or redirect this? (redirect where? Maybe Setting (narrative) or even better, perhaps, Campaign setting?) The best I have is half a sentence long reworded def in here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Metanarrative, perhaps? I think the article is poorly thought out, the list incomplete, and I'm not sure it's worth saving. It includes Rifts (role-playing game) which seems to me the quintessential "Let's throw all this stuff we wrote together and call it a multiverse" as opposed to previous games from the same developer such as The Mechanoid Invasion. Classic entries like The Morrow Project are missing, and it doesn't at all engage with literature-driven games like Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game). Could it be salvaged? On first read, my inclination that it does such a bad job of what it sets out to do that it shouldn't be. Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens I don't think metanarrative is a similar concept. Or they are just both badly written, perhaps (metanarrative has sources but it is also a postmodernistic mambo jumbo). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this belongs on Wikipedia as it is probably a WP:DICDEF but [12] uses the term and formally defines it as does [13]. [14] uses it, and as noted by Piotrus, cites this article. It is also used as "meta-plot" in sources like [15] and [16] which define it in a similar way but for different types of fiction. I'm leaning toward keeping and expanding from a WP:N viewpoint. I'm less sure about the DICDEF issue. I do think the world is probably (very slightly) better off with this article given it has been cited by external sources. But... Hobit (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit ... citogenesis. Although the topic of Wikipedia creating knowledge deserves some proper academic attention. Succesfull citogenesis can still create notable entities (ex an OR essay in Wikipedia that creates a new, notable concept that becomes notable). The thing is, I an not seeing sufficient sourcing to suggest that the concept of metaplot is notable, with or without considering any citogenesis, hence my recommendation to redirect this for now. In the RPG context, what's the difference between metaplot and campaign setting? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a metaplot is likely an aspect of a campaign setting; if anything, that may be a good place to merge or at least redirect. BOZ (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The campaign setting is the geography, characters, etc. Often this is presented as a snapshot at one specific point in setting time. The metaplot is if there is an overarching development in setting time (well, a plot). Some settings have that, some don't. So in my view you can't have a metaplot without a setting, but you can have a setting without a metaplot. Daranios (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>Quite a bit IMO. A setting is a place. A metaplot is a plot running through multiple stories ("adventures" in this context). I'd argue that many of the pathfinder adventure paths are in a setting and that often each book has a plot, but the whole adventure path has something of a metaplot. And then things, like the conflict between the gods, that sometimes resolve just a bit in different adventure paths are somewhere between campaign setting and metaplot. I'm also seeing that "meta-plot" predates the use of metaplot in RPGs and has a very similar meaning. So it's not just citogenesis (which is a cool word btw). Hobit (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit @Daranios I am still having trouble grasphing this concept; isn't it simply an "idea that connects multiple books"? As such, it likely was invented as soon as some presumbly ancient artist decided to make a sequel, prequel, or simply split his work into two parts due to size... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could be. But some books, like Lord of the Rings, really is one story in multiple books. Other things, like say the Sherlock Homes stories have what I'd say is metaplot--Watson getting married and how that all worked out for example. Those examples are most certainly OR, but I think we have enough sources to at least describe the idea. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking of Lord of the Rings myself, but that would only be a good example if the stories in each book were more disconnected from each other rather than just being pieces of one huge story. Many book series that feature a single protagonist or group of characters could be seen as having something like a metaplot, if plot elements from previous books continue to be relevant in later books. BOZ (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Silmarilion into account, I think Middle-Earth is extremly metapolotish. This is really ORish, but hmmm, take Bank's The Culture (or Pratchett's Discworld). Each book is independet but set in the same universe. Some characters occasionally overlap. There is connecting narrative. What about metaplot? It's all subjective... point is, there is something here, but it doesn't appear sufficiently research to make a good Wikipedia article at the moment (certainly not an RPG-focused one, since we are already discussing non-RPG works). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. Most of what is in the article now can be referenced to secondary sources. Contrary to the nomination, this source does not only have half a sentence of definition (p. 12), but also a bit of commentary with the example of Shadowrun on p. 43. Taking together the sources, this article could be extended just beyond a stub, beyond the size suggested for merge reason "Short text", and beyond a dictionary definition. If no more sources are presented, it would remain short, so I have no objections against a merge to Campaign setting, which in my view is by far the best target. As for WP:CITOGENESIS, well, we don't know if the definition appeared before Wikipedia somewhere, but the term is used now by secondary source both with and without reference to Wikipedia, so it should appear in some form in our encyclopedia. For what it's worth, the primary source Exalted Storyteller's Companion, p. 6, has used the term in 2001, before the existence of our article, in our sense here. (And other sources have used it in a different sense...). Daranios (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, Shadowrun. Now that's metaplot galore... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. And Metahumans galore :-). Hobit (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I would buy a MOM t-shirt. (Who will get this reference? :D) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I had forgotten about them. One of the bright spots in the SR Universe. For whatever reasons, I think every character I played in SR was full human. Hobit (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't been able to find any significant coverage beyond what's already been raised in the above discussion. The sources that have been raised aren't cumulatively sufficient to indicate notability, and don't provide a basis to write an article that goes beyond a dictionary definition. McAbee 2014 has to be set aside due to the citogenesis issue. Carraro 2022 and Bowman 2010 are passing mentions. Faricelli 2015 is self-published (Lulu.com). Byrnes 2008 uses the same word to refer to an entirely different concept. Daranios is right that White et al. 2018 comes the closest to constituting the sort of significant coverage we require, but we'd need at least one other source dicussing the subject in at least that level of depth for WP:GNG to be met. A merge or redirect could be viable, but I'm not sure merging to campaign setting is a good idea given the very poor state that article's in, and metanarrative is definitely a non-starter (I'm mildly surprised we don't have some sort of glossary of role-playing games where this could go). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Citogenesis, as far as I know, isn't a good reason to not use a source here IMO. Even if the original source was Wikipedia for the word (which it is not), that doesn't invalidate the source. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are lots of good reasons to avoid citing sources that cite Wikipedia. Aside from the significant risk of questionable material (unsourced facts at best, made-up nonsense at worst) being reproduced, the fact the author and editor thought it wise to cite Wikipedia in published work should put the rigour of that author's work in question. These problems exist in relation to any source that cites Wikipedia; they're significantly exacerbated when the source cites the Wikipedia article it's then being cited in, and are exacerbated further stll when the article they're citing (as in this case, which cites this version) is or was itself entirely unsourced. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep per Daranios. BOZ (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Jclemens. There aren't sources to illustrate this as a real concept, and it's unclear what makes the list of stories into metaplots instead of plots. Archrogue (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Metanarrative~~ campaign setting. Unsourced WP:OR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle Wouldn't campaign setting be more relevant? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes. That is a better idea, thanks. I have updated my !vote above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Adler (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

appears to be a pretty run of the mill businessman of a non-notable company. i can't find anything that isn't straight up cruft or PR about this David Adler and while he has quite a few mentions, there's nothing in depth or relevant to an encyclopedia article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a business listing with a bit of puffery to inflate it. There's nothing encyclopedic about it and the notability is slight. – Athaenara ✉ 18:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find much on him. His father seems notable though. Andre🚐 19:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The firm he founded is non notable. Does not pass WP:Notability(Businessperson). JamesKH76 (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much in terms of WP:SIGCOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus that it meets criteria. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers Band[edit]

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

No evidence of notability and unreferenced for the most part. Tow (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tow (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A simple Google Books search reveals several suitable sources including one about the rock history of Cleveland, a Guardian review, a Spin article, and another book about Ohio rock and roll (among other sources). It's an easy keep for me. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified above and others such as this AllMusic staff written bio so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus that it meets criteria. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If You're Not Dead, Play[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Tow (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tow (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I discussed the documentary's prequel at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Everything, and Then It's Gone.
1. Heldenfels, R.D. (2005-09-28). "Local Bands in Spotlight on PBS – 'If You're Not Dead, Play!' Looks at Chi Pig, Unit 5 and Hammer Damage". Akron Beacon Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-08-15. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
  The article notes: "If You're Not Dead, Play! -- which premieres at 8 tonight on WNEO/WEAO (Channels 45/49) -- continues the tale by looking at the local success of '70s/'80s bands Chi Pig, Unit 5 and Hammer Damage. ... That set the context for the bands in If You Aren't Dead, who thought they could have big recording success -- and didn't get it. As legendary as they were in Northeast Ohio, they were at best cult figures in other parts of the world. ... The documentary is told partly by Hoffman's narration, vintage photos, ancient video (of sometimes awful quality) and the band members. ... The musicians' stories are pretty entertaining, especially ones about the perils of the stage at the Bank and the seediness of local clubs."
2. Ferris, D.X. (2005-09-07). "Talkin' 'Bout Their Generation. PBS documentary revisits second wave of Akron punks". Cleveland Scene. Archived from the original on 2022-08-15. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
  The article notes: "Set to air on Wednesday, September 28, and Thursday, September 9, the new If You're Not Dead, Play!! will cover the next wave of Akron bands, following Chi Pig, Unit Five, and Hammer Damage into the early '80s."
3. Niesel, Jeff (2015-08-24). "Documentary About Akron's Music Scene to Screen on Friday". Cleveland Scene. Archived from the original on 2022-08-15. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
  The article notes: "If You're Not Dead, Play!! documents the second wave of Akron "garage bands" that formed in the ‘80s and included bands such as Unit 5, Chi Pig and Hammer Damage. The film includes interviews with the bands and with pundits such as Chuck Klosterman, a senior writer for Spin who was once the Akron Beacon Journal’s rock critic. Beacon Journal columnist David Giffels also talks about the city’s music scene. The film includes never-released audio recordings, newspaper articles and other memorabilia."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow If You're Not Dead, Play! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - due to sourcing located by Cunard MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the sources found by Cunard. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to If You're Not Dead, Play. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's Everything, and Then It's Gone[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Tow (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tow (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to If You're Not Dead, Play, the film's sequel. I found one source that provided significant coverage about the subject. I discussed the film's sequel at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If You're Not Dead, Play.
1. Heldenfels, R.D. (2003-08-04). "Film Explores 'Akron Sound' – Channels 45/49 To Show Documentary on Heyday of Devo, Bizarros, More". Akron Beacon Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-08-15. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
  The article notes: "Hoffman has revisited that era in It's Everything, And Then It's Gone, a documentary premiering at 8 p.m. Tuesday on WNEO/WEAO (Channels 45/49). And he ably takes viewers into the past. With interviews and archival footage, the documentary should appeal even to people who are not from this area. The special says new, young fans are discovering the music. ... The production's title comes from a comment by the Rubber City Rebels' Buzz Clic after the band failed to hit it big ..."
2. Less significant coverage:
  1. Washington, Julie (2003-08-01). "Channel 5's Harris ready to check out 'View' in New York". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2022-08-15. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
    The article notes: "The documentary "It's Everything and Then It's Gone," examining Akron's rock scene during the 1970s, will air on WEAO Channel 49 at 8 p.m. Tuesday. The hourlong program looks at Akron's music scene during the 1970s and the punk and art-rock bands that contributed to the "Akron sound." It includes interviews with members of Devo and former Plain Dealer rock critic Jane Scott. "It's Everything" was written and directed by Phil Hoffman, adjunct professor of communication at the University of Akron. Akron students assisted in the production."
  2. Heldenfels, R.D. (2005-09-28). "Local Bands in Spotlight on PBS – 'If You're Not Dead, Play!' Looks at Chi Pig, Unit 5 and Hammer Damage". Akron Beacon Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-08-15. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
    The article notes: "In 2003, Phil Hoffman made a nice documentary about the Akron-area music scene. He wasn't done. ... The phrase "local success" is important because Hoffman's earlier documentary, It's Everything, and Then It's Gone, chronicled the moment when groups like Devo and the Waitresses suggested that Akron could be a spawning ground for national acclaim."
  3. Ferris, D.X. (2005-09-07). "Talkin' 'Bout Their Generation. PBS documentary revisits second wave of Akron punks". Cleveland Scene. Archived from the original on 2022-08-15. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
    The article notes: "Talkin' 'Bout Their Generation PBS documentary revisits second wave of Akron punks. By D.X. Ferris on Wed, Sep 7, 2005 at 4:00 am SEND A NEWS TIP Aura Global Cuisine 9300 Broadview Road, Broadview Heights 440-546-9940. Lunch: 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Dinner: 5 to 10 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 5 to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Tying in with PBS' My Generation week of rock-and-roll documentaries, Akron's PBS 45 & 49 commissioned filmmaker Phil Hoffman to assemble a sequel to the well-received It's Everything and Then It's Gone, which told the story of Akron's punk-rock scene from its 1974 inception to its 1979 zenith. "
Cunard (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to If You're Not Dead, Play, as not enough coverage for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A notable band with enough coverage to meet notability. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rainy Day (band)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Cannot find any coverage. Tow (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tow (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is easy to find. Whether it merits a standalone article or could be covered in the David Roback article is another matter. --Michig (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't looked for sources yet but this was such a big band on the 1980s indie circuit in the U.S., I can't believe they don't at least have entries in reference books about popular music. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Svit Sešlar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as per original proposed deletion: "Sourced only to a database; no evidence of notability." Snowflake91 (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I found a couple of foreign-language sources, however I'm not 100% certain if they'd be sufficient to pass WP:GNG or move beyond WP:ROUTINE. This source discusses him returning to his parent club, however the article is admittedly rather brief and could be considered routine. This source seems promising but is paywalled beyond the first paragraph, which seems to discuss Svit and his family (including father Simon who played internationally for Slovenia). I'll add these and several others I've found to the article to see if they serve to shift the article towards notability, but I'm not particularly experienced with AfD discussions or what passes GNG and what doesn't, so I'll leave this as a comment. User:SmackJam (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a yellow sports website and its just a short report that he returend from loan, absolutely no WP:SIGCOV there. The second pay-walled article is most likely not about him, but its a review of all 5 weekly games in the league according to the first sentence – would need someone to unlock the article, we cannot just assume. If suddenly the players would meet WP:GNG because they would get an aritlces like "player X was loaned to team Y", and "the player played a game and scored a goal in the 10th minute", then literally every single player out there could have an article as you would find this for every player in the top league. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. SmackJam (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its nice that you now added several sources and expanded the article, but all those sources are still WP:ROUTINE reports like him being loaned out, extending the contract, match reports, interview at club's website (WP:PRIMARY) etc. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Guyanese representative cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Pooran[edit]

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

In doing WP:BEFORE could not find much to help this person pass WP:GNG. I found passing mentions of him in Guyana Chronicle and Guyana Journal, but neither said much beyond "He played for Guyana". The Guyana Journal does note him as an early Indo-Guyanese cricket player, but having played for only one game and with no other sources providing notability beyond that, I don't think he passes WP:GNG. TartarTorte 16:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. TartarTorte 16:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guyanese representative cricketers. Finding nothing more than passing mentions, so fails WP:GNG, but there is a valid WP:ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to that as an ATD. Definitely a suitable location. TartarTorte 16:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is sensible here. Could the nominator add a note - with whatever refs are appropriate from sources such as The Guyana Journal to the list please? Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the sources I added to the article were the same as those found by the nom. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guyanese representative cricketers Looks to be a GNG fail here, although he played at a time where sourcing will almost certainly be all offline. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremías Stokes[edit]

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

Barebones stub which merely recites that Stokes was a Guatemalan sprinter who competed in the 1952 Olympics. Stokes was not remotely competitive in his event (400 metres), finishing with the slowest time among all competitors (almost 8 seconds behind the winning time) and failing to qualify for the quarterfinals let alone the semifinals or finals. Fails all applicable criteria: WP:SPORTBASIC (mandating at least one source with WP:SIGCOV, excluding database sources), WP:GNG (lack of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources), and WP:NOLYMPICS (not a medalist). Cbl62 (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Guatemala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails a lot of criteria, as listed above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Connor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrell Arnold[edit]

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

BLP sourced only to a database. When this article was created, the player passed the NFOOTY guidelines, but these have been depreciated and I can find no sources about him.

Looking online and in newspaper archives, I can't find any coverage at all related to either his national team appearances or his time at Louisburg College. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United States of America, and Islands. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of in-depth sources to meet GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Edwards (footballer, born 1967)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin Davy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Connor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Connor (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Connor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find any in-depth coverage of an Anguillan footballer that goes by this name Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find in-depth sources to meet GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girdon Connor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dara Al-Bakry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Jordan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination Kpddg ^(talk) 15:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Participation does not equal notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A discussion about a potential move and re-target can continue on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 14:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ungrateful[edit]

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

Only contains one article Ungrateful (album) which was moved from this title in 2013 on the grounds Ungrateful was 'too generic' The other two items are not articles. No assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete.Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure if the two song entries are appropriate (they're both only mentioned in the track listings of the albums, with no other releant content beyond that), but there's at least the generic meaning (which I'll add back to the dab), so we've got at least two clearly viable entries. There's also Ungrateful (band) (with a single incoming link), which may be added in the future if the topic proves notable. Uanfala (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ungrateful is a diambiguation page, which relates to articles, not things that might exist and may be mentioned in passing. Pls see the guidances "Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts" and Wikipedia:Disambiguation which reads as disambiguating 'articles' throughout. Thanks. Richhoncho (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've got at least two articles: Gratitude and Ungrateful (album). Uanfala (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All entries are useful; redirects for song titles mentioned this way are very common. MB 16:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, this is not any kind of aid to navigation.Central and Adams (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Ungrateful (disambiguation), which could be easily done without needing any AfD; and it will provide people with the destination they want, the definition on Wiktionary. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but if a disambiguation page had been needed I would have moved as you suggested. Richhoncho (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Ungrateful (disambiguation), and retarget the current title to Gratitude. I have just added references for the terms used to describe absence of gratitude to the lede. Obviously the dab should be kept; there are four things by that name that readers might want to look up in an encyclopedia, two with articles, and two mentioned in articles for which no one has proposed either that the article or the mention does not belong in Wikipedia. BD2412 T 02:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where that's coming from, but I don't think redirecting to Gratitude would be helpful. The term "ungrateful" is an adjective describing something or someone characterised by the absence of what is being described in that article, and that's several degrees of separation between the search term and the article. I don't think it's very likely to be used by readers who are searching for content about gratitude. If you also consider that the album with the same name has some prominence and that the article about gratitude already suffers from bad hatnote overload... Uanfala (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this page Ungrateful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the subject of a move request located at Talk:Ungrateful (album) -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move, retarget per BD2412 Polyamorph (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the other 2 entries are valid per WP:DABMENTION. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Crouch, Swale's statement. We shouldn't be ungrateful for this article as the entries do pass WP:DABMENTION. Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep entries pass dabmention. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move There are only two topics. The redirect Ungratefulness, per WP:NOUN, and the article Ungrateful (album). We are an encyclopedia, so the only entry with this title, Ungrateful (album), is the primary topic. Then Ungrateful should be made into a disambiguation page. Tree Critter (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The music entries make this a useful disambig page. PS nice pun, Copyrightpower1337 :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Epicor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solarsoft Business Systems[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable company. SL93 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. SL93 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: A brochure-like article on a company active under this name following a merger in 2007, then itself acquired in 2012. No evidence of notability under this or the pre-merger names. The brief summary on the Epicor page is sufficient; a redirect to there could be a WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Epicor, I couldn't find anything either. No opinion either way on whether history needs to be deleted but no way to have a compliant article here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AN/ARC-27[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG in the article. BEFORE is not helpful. (there are some mentions in passing, but they just confirm the use of the device, I can't find anyt indication of its significance - claims that's it is an important part of technological or military history, etc.). This piece of equipment exists (existed) but WP:NOTACATALOGUE of minor equipment parts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there is some coverage in primary sources, which would probably be seen as reliable enough to be used to expand the article.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] There is also some secondary coverage.^[6]^[7]

References

^ United States Department of Defense (1964). Electronic Communication Equipment. pp. 27–29.
^ Chief of Naval Operations (1961). All-weather Flight Manual. pp. 7-4 to 7-6.
^ Aircraft Accident and Maintenance Review. Vol. 11–12. Inspector General of the Department of the Air Force. 1956. p. 19.
^ United States Department of the Army (1962). Field Artillery Communications. pp. 85–86.
^ Infantry. Vol. 47–48. U.S. Army Infantry School. 1957. pp. 32–33.
^ "Military radio". The Gazette (Cedar Rapids). 17 September 1983. p. 56. Retrieved 11 August 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Department of Defense Appropriations for 1958; Hearings Before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Eighty-fifth Congress, First Session · Volume 11, Part 2. United States House Committee on Appropriations. 1957. pp. 52–53.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but primary sources are weak when it comes to estabilishing notability. If all we have are military manuals and such, well... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How would you assess the two secondary sources? SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A piece of military technology having military manuals that reference it is: 1) not significant coverage, 2) is original research/primary sourcing, 3) not independent from the subject. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How would you assess the two secondary sources? SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial/routine coverage that doesn't confer notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also cannot find any significant coverage in secondary sources. I can't access the newspaper article given by SailingInABathTub, but only one secondary source isn't enough. (The House committee report counts a primary source IMO, as it was produced by the U.S. government). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge as per nomination. Merging would be preferable if a suitable target could be found, which unfortunately I have been unable to do so far. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Three strong arguments for keep on policy grounds. There is only a few hours left until the deadline and there appears no chance the consensus will change in that time, and the submissions are unanimous with no active discussion ongoing. If anyone disagrees with my closure, let me know on my talk page and I will undo the close and leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna: Innocence Lost[edit]

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

Does not seem WP:NOTABLE per WP:FILM, and not enough WP:RS in third party. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NFILM requires at least 2 notable reviews. There are reviews from Variety and NY Times cited in the article. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Donaldd23. As far as I remember, there exists other third party sources. It can be expanded with them. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has three reliable sources reviews in the article: Variety, New York Times and People Magazine so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedied per G5, correct article moved back into its place. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC) GeneralNotability (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Yadav[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:NPOL. Social-Informers (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Social-Informers (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if deleted, Manoj Yadav (politician) needs moving to its place Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5. See Metaverse Logic. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masha-ye Ashayiri Shomareh-ye Do[edit]

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

And also:

Complete list of 34 other Carlossuarez46 articles about "villages" with "Masha-ye" in the name

*Masha-ye Hojjatabad

"Masha-ye" (مشاع) appears (based on machine translation) to mean "community of". It is therefore used in the Iranian census to identify a location where the census has counted people for which they have no handy name. For example the title of this article translates as "Nomadic communities number 2" - apparently somewhere the census-takers counted nomads, who by definition do not live in a legally-recognised place. This is therefore a WP:GEOLAND#1 fail, as well as being a WP:GNG fail due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.

Other items on this list appear to be just neighbourhoods within larger communities (e.g., the numbered communities within the "Rural District" - really a village - of Jahadabad such as "Masha-ye 33 Jahadabad"). Some are just places referred to by their location (e.g., "Masha-ye 7 Posht Kuh Do Sari" which means something like "Community number 7 behind Dostari mountain"). These are not in any sense real places, but just creations of the Iranian census, and therefore fail WP:GEOLAND#1. They are all sourced only to the Iranian census and therefore WP:GNG fails.

Bundling is justified per WP:BUNDLE as these are spam/hoax articles created by the same author according to the same template.

Now that I've got AWB approval I plan to template all the articles in the list, but it may take me a day or two to do it so please have patience.

PS- you might think that 35 articles is a lot, but please remember that Carlossuarez46 was creating these articles at a rate of up to 100 or more per day. Deletion has to keep pace with mass-creation, otherwise we are allowing mass-creators to establish a fait accompli. Similarly WP:BEFORE as to be proportionate to the original work that was done to confirm the notability of the article that was created, which in this case was zero, otherwise again we are simply permitting a fait-accompli. FOARP (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per every other AfD about this editor’s junk stubs. Mccapra (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all it's unlikely that these are villages. Although I think Google Translate is incorrect in translating "rural district" as village - Jahadabad is a district (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6556940) possibly named after a locality (which even GeoNames doesn't say is a populated place https://www.geonames.org/6963671/jahadabad.html); it looks like the largest village there is Dow Sari. Peter James (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadabad (32°40′ N 51°57′ E), Qahab-e Jonubi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND#1 and WP:GNG. And also:

Mohammadabad (32°40′ N 51°47′ E), Qahab-e Jonubi

Both of these "villages" (really, abadi, which are reference points used in the Iranian census, and can be unpopulated, or simply factories/farms/shops/pumps used as reference points) have exactly the same name and are therefore indistinguishable. The co-ordinates in one case point to an empty field near a town called Khatunabad, and in the other point to a village that appears to have the real name of Sosart. The only sources are the Iranian census (which does not confer legal recognition) and GEOnet Names Server (which is unreliable for whether a place is or was ever populated and contains many errors). Incidentally it is not clear at all where the co-ordinates used in these articles comes from.
These articles really do demonstrate that all of Carlossuarez46's Iranian Abadi articles sourced only to the Iranian census and/or GEOnet Names Server or similar sources, and not improved since creation by anyone else, should be deleted. Even where the name indicates that there may be a village (although it is equally possible that these are neighbourhoods within larger settlements, or groupings of more than one settlement), it is then not possible to confirm whether or not the actual location does exist making them a WP:V fail. It's beyond time just to call WP:TNT on this whole mess. Particularly where an editor has resorted to using co-ordinates to distinguish one settlement from another when naming the article and those co-ordinates turn out to be wrong (and a WP:CRITERIA/WP:COMMONNAME fail to boot) this indicates definite problems. FOARP (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates are probably from GEOnet Names Server as they are in GeoNames: https://www.geonames.org/418622/mohammadabad.html and https://www.geonames.org/418623/mohammadabad.html. If they are correct the second is now in the city of Isfahan. Persian Wikipedia uses "(Qahab-e Jonubi, east)" and "(Qahab-e Jonubi, west)" for disambiguation. Peter James (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding here Peter. The issue here is that GeoNames is a wiki-like source and thus not reliable, and even if it were reliable the co-ordinates point to locations that are not obviously associated with any place called Mohammadabad (and so are unreliable in their own terms). Similarly even if there are listings on GEOnet Names Server this is an unreliable source (in this case even for the co-ordinates which are clearly wrong). Renaming as on FA Wiki makes no sense unless there is sourcing to substantiate the existence of these places as legally-recognised populated places, which FA Wiki does not help with because it is cited to English Wikipedia (again showing the harm that these negligently-created articles causes by propagating fake information on the internet and citogenesis). FOARP (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, since we don't have a reliable source saying the place exists. The Iranian census and the GEOnet Names Server don't count. The Persian Wikipedia entry only cites the Iranian census as well. Hut 8.5 20:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot be easily distinguished in search engine due to having the same name (along with many others) and being within the same rural district (Qahab-e Jonubi Rural District), and coordinates failed WP:V. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Femke (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lindsay (apologist)[edit]

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

Previous nominations at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Lindsay and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Lindsay_(second_nomination)

DELETE - The article's subject does not meet the requirements for notability. Per WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The sources for this article are

1. Fairmormon.org, a posting by Lindsay himself on (not independent)

2. Mormanity, Lindsay's own blog (not independent)

3. Nauvoo Times. A blog showing that he was a contributor, adding nothing biographical. (not independent)

4. Mormoninterpreter.com, a publication on which Lindsay is on the board (not independent)

5. Jefflindsay.com, another blog owned by Lindsay. (not independent)

6. Mormoninterpreter.com, this time with a link to a blog post by Lindsay. (not independent)

7. Fairmormon.org, another blog posting written by Lindsay (not independent)

8. newsroom.lds.org, a link to a blogpost by Lindsay (not independent)

9. Mormoninterpreter.com page listing board members, demonstrating that Lindsay is not independent from the source.

10. exmormon.org anonymous posting criticizing Lindsay. Not reliable

11. A book by Richard Abanes. Book might be a good source on an established article, but coverage within this book is not significant enough to establish notability.

There are exactly zero sources that establish notability. This article was nominated for deletion once, with the recommendation to DELETE. It was nominated a second time many years ago and somehow the decision was to keep. This was in large part due to the number of patents he had obtained. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) makes clear that "Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7." This needs to be looked at again a third time now that better guidelines have been established on Wikipedia. Epachamo (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. A quick search of my own suggests no significant coverage that can be easily found. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per nom. Alsdo, there is certainly no indication of passing WP:PROF here, and there are elements of WP:FRINGE here too. Nsk92 (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the others have indicated. The standards of Wikipedia have changed significantly since 2006, and with there being no independent sources there is no reason to keep this article. Rollidan (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Femke (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Cabinet and Council of State[edit]

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

This is a 17-year-old unreferenced orphan stub and an apparent failed attempt at a DAB page. The North Carolina Cabinet and North Carolina Council of State are two separate executive institutions of state government with their own respective articles. Their duties and business generally do not intersect with one another, and their broad shared role in simply both providing executive leadership to the state (in different areas) is already covered at Government of North Carolina#Executive branch. Having a joint article on them is purely redundant. What confusion might exist in distinguishing between the two bodies (which sometimes happens) is already resolved by disambiguation "not to be confused with" notes at the top of the two articles for the respective institutions. Seeing as this is an orphan and the unlikelihood that someone would be looking for a joint article on this when the subjects are fleshed out in two other places already means there is no practical redirect or merge target. This should be deleted. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fiona McIntosh#Valisar with the option to merge any viable sourced content that isn't already in the parent article. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King's Wrath[edit]

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

Third book in a trilogy, all appear to fail WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK. (I don't know how to nominate three articles in one AfD, so please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Exile and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrant's Blood for other discussions. This article has an unreferenced reception section that seems to be based on the book's publisher blurb. I can't find any reliable coverage of it otherwise. Courtesy ping User:Pburka who removed prod for this, with a comment: "Likely notable book. Translated into Dutch and French; nominated for 2011 Gemmell awar (see isfdb.org). But we should consider merging all three books into one article.". I don't think translations are relevant to establishing notability (I think there was a Polish one too, shrug). I cannot find much about the Gemmel award, it appears rather minor (and a nomination carries less weight then winning something anyway). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Australia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author Fiona McIntosh per WP:ATD pending the discovery of any reliable sources. The author seems notable so it is a valid redirection. If sources are found, no qualms as to the recreation of the articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fiona McIntosh#Valisar per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
I found one source about the subject:
1. Brazulaitis, Stefen (September 2010). "The King's Wrath: Valisar Book Three [Book Review]". Bookseller + Publisher Magazine. Vol. 90, no. 2. p. 32. ISSN 1833-5403. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow King's Wrath to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge into Royal Exile, the notable first book in the series, or merge all three into Valisar Trilogy. pburka (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Pburka. The trilogy is notable even if this book is not. Archrogue (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fiona McIntosh#Valisar with the option to merge any viable sourced content. I note some suggestions that the redirect target instead be the first book in the trilogy; I'm seeing numerically stronger support for the target I have chosen, but if there is disagreement, a different discussion may be needed, as consensus isn't clear as to the target. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrant's Blood[edit]

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

Second book in a trilogy, all appear to fail WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK. (I don't know how to nominate three articles in one AfD, so please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Exile and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Wrath for other discussions. This article has an unreferenced reception section that seems to be based on the book's publisher blurb. I can't find any reliable coverage of it otherwise. Courtesy ping User:Pburka who removed prod for this, with a comment: "Likely notable book. Translated into Dutch and French; nominated for 2010 Hemming and Gemmel awards (see isfdb.org). But we should consider merging all three books into one article.". I don't think translations are relevant to establishing notability (I think there was a Polish one too, shrug). I cannot find much about the Hemming and Gemmel award, it appears rather minor (and a nomination carries less weight then winning something anyway). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Australia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author Fiona McIntosh per WP:ATD pending the discovery of any reliable sources. The author seems notable so it is a valid redirection. If sources are found, no qualms as to the recreation of the articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fiona McIntosh#Valisar per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
I found one source about the subject:
1. Woodhead, Cameron (2009-09-19). "Fiction". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The review notes: "Tyrant's Blood is the second in her Valisar trilogy. In the first book, Royal Exile, ... The sequel takes place a decade later. The Empire flourishes under Loethar's dominion, but the Valisar heir, Leo, quietly gathers power in an effort to unseat the tyrant and reclaim the family throne. McIntosh is an imaginative world-builder, writing fantasy that brims with complex characters, carefully laid intrigues and hair-raising violence. This series may be her best yet."
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tyrant's Blood to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge into Royal Exile, the notable first book in the series, or merge all three into Valisar Trilogy. pburka (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Pburka. The trilogy is notable even if this book is not. Archrogue (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Archrogue What would make the trilogy notable? We haven't found a single source that's WP:SIGCOV for it. A redirect to the first book in the series, proved notable, which can discuss sequels, seems reasonable. The trilogy was PRODed, deprodded by an anon and I'll AfD it now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Exile[edit]

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

First book in a trilogy, all appear to fail WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK. (I don't know how to nominate three articles in one AfD, so please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrant's Blood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Wrath for other discussions. This article has an unreferenced reception section that seems to be based on the book's publisher blurb. I can't find any reliable coverage of it otherwise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Australia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author Fiona McIntosh per WP:ATD pending the discovery of any reliable sources. The author seems notable so it is a valid redirection. If sources are found, no qualms as to the recreation of the articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
1. Tomlinson, Gail (2009). "Royal Exile. Book One of the Valisar Trilogy". The Science Fact & Science Fiction Concatenation. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The Science Fact & Science Fiction Concatenation has an entry at the website of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. The review notes: "This book is slow to start and at first difficult to get into, but if you persevere, pieces of the puzzle fall into place, and by the time you get halfway through the book, the intrigue, magic and questions within the pages will draw you through to the end, at which point you will find yourself looking for the next book in the series to find out what happens. If you can get into it, it is a highly enjoyable read."
2. Dempsey, Dianne (2008-10-11). "Fantasy with bite - Fantasy". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The review notes: "Within McIntosh's world heroes, animals, magicians and highwaymen all have a part to play and all have a particular language and set of beliefs that hold firm for the entire book. It is this inventiveness and the consistency with which it is applied that gives McIntosh her credibility as a fantasy writer. The other factor that has to hold, and something that McIntosh is very good at, is the voice. It is assured and a pleasure to read."
3. "Book Release". The Advertiser. 2008-09-23. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The article notes: "South Austrlian author Fiona McIntosh has released her latest novel, Royal Exile, the first in a trilogy. The book is set in the Far East where the warlord Loethar and his barbarian horde live. They swarm across kingdoms, destroying all who had once mocked them. Only one land remains to be conquered: the richest and most powerful realm of the Denova Set - Penraven."
4. "Fantasy series". The Border Mail. 2008-09-04. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The article notes: "The first novel, Royal Exile is as dark as it is compelling. The make-believe worlds – this time the land of Penraven – has Fiona’s traditional strong sense of authenticity, which she achieves by roaming the world for locations from which to draw her fantasy settings."
5. Steele, Colin (2008-10-19). "Fantasy". The Canberra Times. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The article notes: "Royal Exile, the first in the Valisar Trilogy, has similar plot lines to Acacia. The kingdom of Penraven, with acknowledged Welsh roots, is threatened by a mercenary army led by another ruthless leader. Royal Exile is more conventional fantasy with fewer moral ambiguities than Acacia, although McIntosh does not flinch from some brutal scenes and characters."
6. Tyler, Heather (2008-10-26). "Cannibal plot key". Northern Territory News. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The article notes: "When South Australian fantasy writer Fiona McIntosh was on a Christmas holiday in Tasmania, there was a scene that kept playing in her head. She was imagining a man smirking at a woman while he chomps on the man she loves. From this vignette of cannibalism McIntosh created her latest book Royal Exile, an epic of good versus evil in the imaginary world of Penraven where warlords and barbarians clash with daring nobles, and wrestle with the inevitable crisis to save their world. Royal Exile is the first book of McIntosh's Valisar Trilogy."
7. Kablean, Carrie (2008-09-05). "Sight & Sound". Wish Magazine. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Among a swag of fantasy releases this month are Royal Exile (Voyager, $32.99), the first in a new series from Fiona McIntosh and peopled with a renegade army out to conquer the Kingdom of Penraven ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Royal Exile to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Impressive finds. Some of those are rather short, but taken together you make a convincing case. Ping User:Zxcvbnm, how about you - would you change your vote? Then I could withdraw this and speedy close. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: If the article was improved to pass GNG, I would absolutely withdraw my vote per WP:HEY. Right now, however, it's still WP:ALLPLOT for the most part and until such time as someone sees fit to incorporate the sources I don't see why it shouldn't redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True. Any chance, Cunard, you could add some material (refs) to the article, so the notability would be seen in it (not just in our discussion here)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Borderline. The first ref doesn't look reliable at all, but has some suggestions of about us and policies. A praising mention in the Hugo-prize winning science fiction encyclopedia seems to indicate that it's a RS. Ref 2 is from The Age, one of the best Australian papers, and seems to be significant. The Advertiser (Adelaide) is a tabloid, but a discussion on RSN seems to say it's between generally and marginally reliable, but the press coverage is too short to meet SIGCOV. The 4th ref is yet another tabloid-format newspaper, I'd say it could count as one half to one full ref, depending on your votes in AfD (I personally think, provided that it's RS, that it's probably significant). Sadly, the 5th one isn't long enough. The 6th ref is a long piece, but covers the book for less than half of the article, so whether it meet SIGCOV is debatable, but it's probably one half to a full ref. The 7th one is also too short. So, depending on interpretation, there could be 1-4 refs that support GNG (1 is very, very unlikely), although a more reasonable range IMHO is probably 2-3. But only two is needed to meet WP:GNG or the first criteria of WP:NBOOK, so I am voting weak keep. VickKiang (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Taken together with the sources Cunard found for the other books in the series, this fantasy trilogy is notable. pburka (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. There are enough sources here. VickKiang is fair to say they are borderline and maybe a suitable merge target is available per WP:PRESERVE. Archrogue (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify, and the plot introduction section should be entirely revdeled per RD1, it's an exact copy of the publisher's blurb, see Earwig's. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...It could be a backwards copy but I am also removing the other plot summary section [17]. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK yeah that one is a backwards copy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And it looks like a good move to examine the article creator's other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruijin-class armed merchantman[edit]

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

Dependence on unreliable source and - based on Google translation of said source - WP:OR. Cursory Google and Wikipedia Library search fails to turn up reliable sources. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 07:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and China. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article does not impress, and lack of zh interwiki is not a good sign. But a BEFORE should be done in Chinese. Can anyone help? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Upon digging a bit further, I fear that this may be the tip of an iceberg. XdeLaTorre (talk · contribs), who created this article, seems to have created a great many more articles like this over the past ten years. It's rather overwhelming. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently "Ruijin" is a translation or transliteration of a US warship...? [18] This is confusing. Googling "Ruijin ship" ("瑞金船") doesn't seem to give anything about this one. My Mandarin is mediocre, though. Ovinus (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sole citation, google-translated from the Chinese, says

"Ruijin/ Xingguo/ Zunyi/ Handan/ Yancheng

These five ships are all substitute gunboats converted from merchant ships or transport ships. In the early days of the establishment of the CCP Navy, due to the lack of regular combat ships, a large number of ships from the original China Merchants Bureau and various private shipping and fishing companies were requisitioned to install artillery as substitute gunboats (Also known as frigate); it belongs to the Seventh Fleet of the East China Navy of the Chinese Communist Party.

Among them, the two ships "Ruijin" and "Xingguo" were originally small transport ships of the U.S. Navy. They were sold to China's state-owned China Merchants Shipping Company after the war and were named "Jiangtong" and "Jiangda" respectively. After the CCP won Nanjing and Shanghai, in order to Intensifying preparations for the offensive against Taiwan, the two ships were expropriated by the East China naval authorities and equipped with a land-use 105mm howitzer and two American 76.2mm anti-aircraft guns. Renamed "Ruijin" and "Xingguo" became gunboats.

The "Ruijin" ship was sunk by four F-47 fighters of the National Air Force at 0652 on May 18, 1954 near Cao Xieyu in the waters of Zhejiang; due to the special significance of the name of Ruijin to the history of the CCP, it is reported that the CCP later compensated with Japan. The ship "Hui'an" was put into service in place of "Ruijin"."

From this it appears that the 6 ships in the English WP article include the replacement ship, Hui'an (="Huaiyang", but the wikilink in the article goes to a geographical district, as do all 6 of the "PLAN name"s in the article's table). All the information in the English article beyond what is given in the cited text is at the moment WP:OR, or at least, the editor has forgotten to cite the sources used. The clue "(Also known as frigate)" might lead somewhere, or it might not, it's a very general term in English but it might be more specific in Chinese. All the launch, commissioned, and retired dates are vague in the extreme, barring the exact retired-sunk date for Ruijin which comes from the cited source: in short, the table is almost completely worthless. The same goes for the 8 bluelinks to "World War II" intended as date substitutes: these are vague to the point of non-existence (ignoring the ridiculous overlinking). I wonder where the data - 560 long tons, 180 ft length, 500 hp engine power etc come from - these don't look made up. Maybe User:XdeLaTorre could help us with that? If not, this will have to be deleted as OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at very least per WP:TNT. We have severe verifiability concerns and the author has so far been unresponsive (User_talk:XdeLaTorre#Chinese_ship_articles). The similar ship articles should probably be scrutinized. Ovinus (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Ovinus and my discussion above - without reliable evidence, this is unsalvageable. I'd concur that all the similar ship articles may need to be checked for the same issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Nice[edit]

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

There are two entries on this disambiguation page. Neither are blue links, contrary to the guidance "Don't include entries without a blue link" nor Wikipedia:Disambiguation which reads as disambiguating 'articles' throughout. Richhoncho (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tree Critter (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per WP:NOPRIMARY, no more than two entries are necessary.~~

~~All entries have blue links.~~

~~I've added a third entry anyway~~. Tree Critter (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Critter Pls note: This nomination is because there are no WP articles (only redirects), not whether the term 'Not Nice' is used as a song title more than once. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~User:Richhoncho Pls note: I responded to that. "Per WP:NOPRIMARY, no more than two entries are necessary." As in, there doesn't need to be a primary topic. The policy is clear~~. Tree Critter (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which goes on to read "For example, John Quested is a disambiguation page for the two people by that name who can be found in the encyclopedia" AS there are no topic articles for Not Nice, your argument fails. Richhoncho (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'know what. You have convinced me. Tree Critter (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION, these entries "provide value to the reader" - they explain when, by whom, on what album, etc. the song was released. MB 16:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per request above by page creator, User:Tree Critter--Richhoncho (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion on a redirect can continue editorially, we don't need a 3rd spin with no indication we'll get significant input Star Mississippi 15:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sovok[edit]

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

This disambiguation page links to two articles, but neither of these articles includes the word "Sovok" at all. There is no reason discernable to me (a non-Russian speaker) as to why the word "Sovok" might relate to either of these topics, other than some similarity in sound. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Sovok" was included in earlier versions of Homo Sovieticus, and was a redirect to that article until 2020. PamD 07:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed by an IP in 2017. PamD 07:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann: (who added the sentence, and still edits occasionally) for info. PamD 07:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Homo Sovieticus. My reasoning is that the topic leads directly to the Soviet Union and readers can swiftly navigate to that article if so desired. No need for a DAB page! SWinxy (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify or delete? w:ru and w:uk have articles for "sovok (slang)" that are distinct from their articles for "homo sovieticus" and for the non-slang "scoop/dustpan". I think redirecting sovok → homo sovieticus would give the wrong impression that the terms are synonyms and would be astonishing if not properly explained at the target article. Is the word attested enough in English to be a plausible search term? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 09:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this version? Talk:Sovok#Proposed stub ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arisil Moorthy[edit]

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

PROD removed. Fails WP:Filmmaker. Case of WP:Too soon (imagine creating a wiki page for every one film director). Two interview sources 100% talk about the film and not him.

Interesting sidenote: the director himself wrote part of this article. DareshMohan (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But even he is director. It have correct reference. With interviews. Its correct .. 2402:4000:21C1:51CF:DC0B:69AD:BC23:A6FF (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please look again at the article. There is more than one full length article on the individual, as well as several other sources reflecting the notability of his films (where he also gets a mention) 2402:4000:21C1:51CF:DC0B:69AD:BC23:A6FF (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

actually, five sources mention him, not two. DareshMohan (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRzw4JHxT6U check his interview 2402:4000:20C0:6C7A:705E:EC4:245C:2F22 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep

https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/meet-the-team-of-rara/article36627113.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.189.231 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion needs more competent discussion based in policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: The available coverage is associated with the release of the film Raame Aandalum Raavane Aandalum. Nether that nor the subject's prior career is sufficient to demonstrate attained individual notability. A redirect to the film article could provide a WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Donato[edit]

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

Only one of three sources appears to be reliable, that being Dread Central (though it links to the wrong article; can't find the correct one but there is this DVD review). Per this discussion, filmreference.com is blacklisted (though I only see bfilmreference.com on the actual list, a site which doesn't appear to exist; might that be a typo?), and the third is IMDb. Search turned up no further reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. QuietHere (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreeing with nom. I can't find much coverage beyond "Marc Donato was in film X". As a side note, I do think an argument could be made for WP:NACTOR#1, but the films that he had a significant role in (Bad Kids Go to Hell, The Final, and Sick Boy) appear to be barely notable (if at all), so I don't think finding any reliable coverage based on his appearance in those films is likely. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Though I can't find much coverage beyond "Marc Donato was in film X", GoldenAgeFan1 evidently can. I believe that all (but maybe one) contribute to meeting the WP:GNG. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe he meets actor notability guidelines for the movie mentioned above along with his role in Degrassi: The Next Generation and The Blue Butterfly. He has also received multiple instances of news coverage in his native Canada but since it was a while ago, is behind paywalls so also meets the GNG. 1, 2, 3, 4 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's in-depth coverage in major Canadian newspapers from decades ago when he was more active. For example this on in the Toronto Star. Nfitz (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Heartbound (video game). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Software (game developer)[edit]

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to Heartbound (video game). This article contains a lot of content about the game development process of Heartbound, which would fit better there (Heartbound (video game)#Development is almost empty as it stands). Of the sources not talking about Heartbound, Ref 1 is primary, Refs 3 and 5 are interviews lacking independent content, Refs 4 and 6 (which I assume are the same) don't contain any coverage of the company at all, and the rest is obvious chaff like the company's own twitter feed (3 times) and their own website. The argument given on the talk page is largely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the the "other stuff" being ancient articles. Searching for sources is difficult due to the large number of mentions of software piracy, but I could not find any better sources easily. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Heartbound (video game) as notability is not inherited from works a studio may create and this article fails WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stanford University. ✗plicit 11:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Department of Electrical Engineering[edit]

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

Not enough progress has been made re: notability and references. This article can be incorporated into the Stanford History article. No relevant outside sources re: notability Wiseoleman17 (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Stanford Andre🚐 00:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Stanford. --Bduke (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stanford University. ✗plicit 11:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Graduate School of Education[edit]

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

No outside references. Is this school notable? UofOregon's page was deleted despite a $425m gift Wiseoleman17 (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not especially notable. Lacks outside references--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Stanford Andre🚐 00:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Stanford. --Bduke (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stanford University. ✗plicit 11:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford University School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences[edit]

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

No outside references. Little progress in 10 years on adding sources. How notable is the school??? Wiseoleman17 (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the new Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability will be replacing this school on September 1, 2022. Presumably this article should be merged in at that time. Erp (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Stanford Andre🚐 00:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Stanford. --Bduke (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stanford University. ✗plicit 11:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford University School of Engineering[edit]

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

No secondary sources. Little progress on adding secondary sources in last ten years. Maybe the departments are more notable than the school? Wiseoleman17 (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not especially notable. Lacks outside references--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Stanford Andre🚐 00:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Stanford. --Bduke (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stanford University. ✗plicit 11:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences[edit]

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

Not enough outside reference. One mediocre outside reference. Is this school worthy of an article??? Wiseoleman17 (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not especially notable. Lacks outside references--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Stanford Andre🚐 00:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Stanford. --Bduke (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ripping (bodybuilding)[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced for several years. Not sure if it should be kept, since it seems there are no plans for improving it. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Health and fitness, Sports, and Bodybuilding. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The process that bodybuilders use to lower their body fat is "cutting" (basically, dieting), not "ripping". This article is an unsourced essay about bodybuilder cutting under a different name. (t · c) buidhe 04:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Boehlke[edit]

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

Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Other stints lack notability as well. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Wisconsin. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I support deletion. Notability is not established through significant coverage in appropriate sources, being a reality television contestant is insufficient. The article not only lacks in notability, but much of what is written cannot be verified due to a lack of appropriate sources. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Communist Party USA (Marxist–Leninist). First, I'd like to thank the nominator and others for explaining the context behind this nomination. There is a clear consensus here that the article should not exist in its current form. There is some divergence around whether the article should be deleted or redirected but the prevailing view seems to favour a redirect, as suggested in the nomination. Waggers TALK 08:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Laski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient sourcing available for a stand-alone article, article should be redirected to Communist_Party_USA_(Marxist–Leninist). See additional message that I will shortly add below Elemimele (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD results from a disagreement at the article itself. Scope creep and an IP editor, 72.95.130.125, both attempted to convert the article to a redirect on the grounds that insufficient sourcing was available. Ʃx and Hey man im josh reverted these changes; after a couple of reverts, Josh sensibly suggested that as the redirect was disputed, it should be discussed at AfD. The article was then nominated by Laski22, who almost immediately withdrew the nomination on grounds that Google books "turned up more than expected", and in consequence, Pppery closed the first AfD; Scope creep, who had no idea the AfD had even happened, then restored the redirect, which is possibly contrary to the wishes of Josh and Laski22. I am therefore re-creating a new AfD so the situation can be resolved properly (because I don't know how to re-open closed AfDs). Sorry about the confusion! Elemimele (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for creating confusion. I'll stay out of this.Laski22 (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Elemimele mentioned, I reverted the first redirect change as I mistook it for an attempt at blanking while patrolling Recent Changes. This led to a discussion on my talk page where an AfD nomination was also recommended. Like Laski22, I apologize for the confusion and unneeded revision history.

There is some mention on the article’s moderately vandalized talk page about notability. With that said however, I will also remain out of further discussions on this topic and the article. Thank you, Ʃx ^{talk|contribs} 18:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 19:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, because of lack of significant coverage. —Natalie RicciNatalie 08:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a Redirect to Communist_Party_USA_(Marxist–Leninist) rather than an absolute consign-to-oblivion delete, as the article on the party already mentions him as its founder, our readers might conceivably be interested in him, and the party is the only article we can reasonably have. Elemimele (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. scope_creep^Talk 18:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider redirect option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing? see Comrade Laski, C.P.U.S.A.(M.-L)

Didion, Joan. Slouching Towards Bethlehem: Essays (p. 61). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition. Tinkwelborn (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this AFD (and the first one) arose from a dispute over whether this article should become a redirect, I'd like to see some consideration of this option, especially from those discussing this option on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's well-sourced now and clearly meets the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having checked a couple of them, they seem to be mostly passing mention, proving he exists but not much else. I've not checked the Joan Didion essay. scope_creep^Talk 12:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Joan Didion article "Comrade Laski, C.P.U.S.A.(M.-L)" is very detailed and constitutes siginificant coverage by one of the worlds best essayists. scope_creep^Talk 12:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which in particular do you consider "passing mentions"? Everything I added has at least a paragraph on Laski and some of them are solely about him.Central and Adams (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph is passing comment, its not significant. I never saw anything that really in-depth. Even the Didion article states he is obscure, and there is barely any biographical info in that article and she set out to meet him, in what is essentially a glorified interview in essay format. scope_creep^Talk 13:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph in the NYT or LAT is not a passing mention, probably a para anywhere in RS isn't. A passing mention is like the people who were arrested with Laski, where there's an article about Laski's arrest and then at the end it says A, B, and C were also arrested. In any case, as I said, a number of the sources I added are solely about Laski. Please be specific about which sources only contain passing mentions. Also, you say that you checked two of them. There are currently fourteen sources, so your sample size seems too small.Central and Adams (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certain papers have a duty to report the court proceedings, folks get reported whether they are notable or not. I think there is probably more than borderline but quantity doesn't mean quality and single paragraphs are not significant coverage. Certainly if there is a quantity of it per policy, it can deemed to be passing WP:SIGCOV, which I think is the case here, but is all very ropey. scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I added was routine coverage of court proceedings. If a paper runs a whole article on a misdemeanor arrest it's a good sign that there's something notable about the subject. If they do this repeatedly for the subject's various activities it adds up to notability. It would be more useful if you could identify actual sources that you think are deficient rather than theorizing about what they might say. Please help advance the argument by citing facts instead.Central and Adams (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirection to CPUSA(ML) is not quite correct, because Laski was involved with a particular split of the party (both splits kept the party name, but published party newspapers under different titles). Laski is probably one of the most (in)famous people in the US New Communist Movement, sadly for his antics in losing a cache of party funds at a Nevada casino, rather than for any particurlarly insightful contribution to Marxism-Leninism. Subject of Didion's portrait is a more than reasonable indication that Laski is notable and, FWIW, Didion frames Laski's obscurity in terms of marginalisation (ie he's been denied attention) rather than irrelevance (note her words: "I'm comfortable with the Michael Laski's of this world, with those who live outside, rather than in, those in whom the sense of dread is so acute that they turn to extreme and doomed committments..."). There's more than passing mention of Laski in Gerald Horne's Fire this Time: The Watts Uprising and the 1960s, discussion of the casino incident on Lib-Com, there's also extensive reportage available via newspapers.com around Laski's claims regarding the CPUSA(ML) role in the 1965 Watts riots and their subsequent debunking. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Communist_Party_USA_(Marxist–Leninist). Notability of the individual is WP:INHERITED. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From my reading of the article in its current form he fails WP:POL for continuous and lasting coverage. (He's not an elected official but is a political activist.) The 2015 Observer citation only has passing mention. Many of the citations are from publications in the mid-1960s which indicates that his acitivies were limited to those years. Running a politically-orientated bookstore is not normally criteria for notability. Blue Riband► 23:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hossein Sharifzadeh[edit]

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

Non-notable sport shooters, this user keep creating articles about non-notable Iranian sport shooters. one of them got deleted before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Mohammad Nekounam, none of them participated at the Olympics and didn't win a medal at Senior World Championships, (some of them have junior medals which is not noteworthy) Sports2021 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

This is a long list, different athletes with different achievements, in case some users want to vote differently I made a list of their achievements to make it easier.

Sport Shooter	World Cup	World Junior Champ.	Asian Senior Champ.	Universiade	Note
Mohammad Hossein Sharifzadeh	-	Yes	-	-
Ebrahim Inanloo	-	-	-	-	some achievements as coach
Mohsen Nasresfahani	-	-	-	-	some achievements as coach
Dorsa Arabshahi	-	-	-	Yes
Amir Siavash Zolfagharian	-	Yes	-	-
Hossein Bagheri	Yes	-	Yes	-	Currently coaching the NT
Mohammad Zaer Rezaei	-	-	Yes	-
Elham Harijani	Yes	-	Yes	-
Mohammad Rasool Efati	Yes	-	-	-
Fatemeh Amini	Yes	-	-	-
Sajjad Pourhosseini	Yes	-	-	Yes
Vahid Golkhandan	Yes	-	-	-

and keep in mind, most of these medals are in team events which is less notable specially in a World Cup. Sports2021 (talk)

Keep.Don't get me wrong, he won a medal in the World Championship, which is more prestigious than the World Cup A2004bb (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that winning World Cup medals is not unimportant, either individually or as a team, it is a great honor that should not be ignored.A2004bb (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you just want to underestimate the field of shooting, otherwise the sources on the mentioned pages confirm the information on the pages. Why is there really an intention to remove these pages from Wikipedia? I don't know, maybe you are not familiar with the field of shooting and consider its medals unimportant; I request all of you to reconsider and do not delete any of them or make the desired edits in the pages with your own opinion in order to improve them, but deleting them is not fair for these pages in any way, thank youA2004bb (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep those who participated in the World Cup, all of whom were medalists. StAnselm (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just for info, World Cup is a secondary tournament in this sport. World Cups are important only when they are Olympic qualifiers, (without Olympic spot to grab, it's just a preparation tournament) some of them won medals in low level team events where only 4 teams participated, like here You might have a point about individual World Cup medalists though. only two of them Golkhandan and Bagheri won individaul medals. Sports2021 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is not easy to get a medal in the World Cup tournament, and please research about itA2004bb (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mohsen Nasr Esfahani coached Javad Foroughi in the 2020 Olympics, when Foroughi won the Olympic gold medal.A2004bb (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regarding Ebrahim Inanloo, please refer to his page and read the tips about it in order to understand the reasons for his stay. He was able to achieve the first Olympic quota in shooting in Indonesia with his coaching and other issues written on his page. and they also have a source.A2004bb (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amir Siavash Zolfagharian participated in the Youth Olympics and the Asian Games and is the owner of the silver medal of the World Championship and the gold of the World Youth Cup. Does a person with such honors really deserve to have his page removed from Wikipedia?A2004bb (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hossein Bagheri is the head coach of Iran's national rifle shooting team. Besides, he has two world medals and an Asian medal. Why should he be removed?A2004bb (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vahid Golkhandan, Efti, Amini, Bagheri, Harijani, Pourhosseini have World Cup medals and sometimes other international medals as well, and it is not acceptable to remove them from Wikipedia.A2004bb (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The people who have World Cup medals should be kept and Siavash Zolfagharian, who has a world medal and experience in the Youth Olympics, Mohsen Nasr Esfahani was a coach in the Olympics, and Inanloo was also a coach in the 2016 Olympics.Marouf.ashena (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you don't learn about not creating sock accounts, I warned you before and now I'm going to report you for sockpuppetry. Sports2021 (talk)

- - Striking confirmed sock. –dlthewave ☎ 12:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do any of these people have a source of SIGCOV cited in the article? Because that is required to presume SIGCOV exists from meeting an NSPORT subguideline. It looks like most of them are referenced solely to sports databases like lssf-sports.org and the-sports.org, with a couple having additional sources ranging from trivial passing mentions in routine announcements/transactional news/press releases to inaccessible media to purely quotes from the subject. At least one of the articles appears to misgender the subject, too. As it stands none of these subjects meet SPORTCRIT, so the only way to save these articles is for editors to dig into Persian sources to demonstrate SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of sockpuppetry going on here but I'm going to relist for another week since it involves the suggested deletion of 12 different articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would still like to hear from more than 2 non-sockpuppet editors before deleting 12 articles in this bundled nomination. Opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage. Ping me if coverage beyond databases and routine mentions is found. –dlthewave ☎ 12:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's two somewhat independent questions here; whether the topic is notable, and whether it should be covered in a standalone article or as part of an article with broader scope. There's clear consensus here as to the first question; a large number of substantive sources has been provided. There's a remarkable lack of agreement as to the second. As merge discussion is a more appropriate venue to pursue that in any case, I'm closing this. I'd like to remind participants that notability does not guarantee a standalone article; whether to merge or not should be determined based on WP:DUE, WP:TOOBIG, and editorial judgement about what serves the reader best. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig's subathon[edit]

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

There seems to be no reason why a Twitch streamer's subathon requires its own article, as it can easily be folded into the article of the streamer himself. As a viral Internet event, it likely also fails WP:EVENTCRIT. While it was a particularly long stream, people doing long streams is fairly routine and not exactly something incredible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Entertainment. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Andre🚐 03:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On what rationale? AfD is not a poll. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 05:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
per nom Andre🚐 18:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Firstly, passes WP:GNG very easily, with substantial coverage from RS's BBC, New York Times, USA Today, the Verge, and a myriad of other sources deemed reliable per WP:VG/S (see the article for those.) The event is notable for breaking the 2018 record of most concurrent subscribers on Twitch. Yes, "people doing long streams is fairly routine and not exactly something incredible," but major RS publications writing about them is not normal: breaking subscription records is not normal, and the popularity of the subathon was not normal.

Secondly, a 2022 re-analysis of Ludwig's subathon called it the "most high-profile subathon";[19] it's clear Ludwig's subathon set a new popularity and precedent for subathons. Just look at Google Trends for "subathon": the term exploded in popularity after his stream, but remained much higher than pre-March 2021, to this day. For this reason—the popularization of subathons—Ludwig's subathon passes the first criteria of WP:EVENTCRIT because it had "a signifigant lasting effect" on subathons and long streams as a whole on Twitch.

One more thing— I have 10 more tabs of articles from RSs to add to the article. Even in it's current state, a merge to Ludwig Ahgren would add way too much content and be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the article. It's much better to keep it separate, especially when comprised of reliable, independent, sources with broad coverage.— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 05:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: PerfectSoundWhatever (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note the part in WP:GNG that says: "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." A promotional event held by a single streamer would violate not only WP:INDISCRIMINATE but WP:NOTPROMO unless it had some sort of world-shattering impact, and this subathon was viral yet still a flash in the pan event. It also doesn't seem like it would be very UNDUE if summarized in a single section, which it can easily fit into. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is the stream a "promotional event"? Livestreamers broadcast streams, that's the nature of being a creative professional; that's the medium they create and entertain on. That's like saying a musician releasing an album is a "promotional event". Or what's next, an author writing a book? Gasp, how dare they attempt to become popular and earn money? /s

Secondly, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there's no reason to delete well-sourced articles that pass GNG. All topics with Wikipedia articles do not have a "world-shattering impact", if they did, we would have much, much less than 6 million articles. Why should specially events be held to such a high degree of scrutiny? Besides, I do believe that the subathon passes the overly stringent event criteria per above.

Thirdly, WP:INDISCRIMINATE in no way applies here. You could use that boiler plate argument when trying to delete any article, but that doesn't mean it applies. WP:INDISCRIMINATE isn't even about article deletion / notability, it's about uncontextualized, overly-long data entries. Ludwig's subathon is just a livestream, a perfectly suitable topic for a Wikipedia article; a livestream is essentially just a contemporaneous version of a television show, nothing strange here. How is the prose in this article more "indiscriminate", than say any other article which passes GNG and whose topic did not have a "world-shattering impact" (aka most articles). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the article itself: "A "subathon", short for "subscription marathon", is a type of livestream on Twitch where every time a streamer receives a subscription—US$5 donations from viewers—more time is added to a descending timer.". Doing a marathon for money is the description of a promotional event. For the most part, while many works of entertainment are done for money, the idea of being paid is not the primary focus, just an expectation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I suggest that the article be rewritten and tweaked to focus on the concept of “subathon” as a distinct topic. There is some interesting discussion from multiple sources about the nature of subathons as well as the health and social impacts on the participants and the audience. Ludwig’s month-long stunt is notable within the parameters of GNG, but it is far from the only one that’s been done in the influencer streaming industry. Some of the more important details from the stream itself can be summarized in one paragraph or two, to avoid undue weight and giving the impression of inappropriately promoting the influencer himself. Ludwig’s subathon can be redirected to such a section. Here’s an example of a source that talks about “subathons” broadly, while also acknowledging Ludwig’s influence on the marketing scheme: Haleth (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely all for the creation of a subathon article if it's notable, but I don't see what it has to do with this article about a specific streamer's one-time subathon. Your "keep" is misleading because it's really a "rewrite completely", which is not something an AfD can force to happen in the slightest. This debate is about the article in its current form, not its possible future form. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PerfectSoundWhatever's argument. Zxcvbnm, as someone who appreciates your work on this site, I honestly can't agree with your assessment that the subathon even remotely comes close to a routine event. Yes, many Twitch events do seem to border on routine coverage due to their propensity for recentism, and the idea of continuous livestreaming may not seem unique on the face of it. However, with the sheer amount of coverage about the event before, during and after the fact, Ludwig's subathon passes the event guidelines.

First off, Ludwig was credited for popularizing the trend with his subathon in this recent Dot Esports article from over a year since the event ended, proving that the event has had a decent lasting effect per criteria #1 - the lasting effect being that a multitude of streamers have made subathons of their own. It's just like when a musician brings a genre to the mainstream. Or for a more relevant example, how journalists cite Slowbeef as the pioneer of Let's Plays who has inspired plenty of other YouTubers to create videos of that type.

Also, the amount of coverage on the event already shows it passes GNG as PerfectSound and Haleth stated. This means the subathon also passes #2 of the criteria; the sheer number of sources for this one stream alone is just too much to ignore. It's not to the extent of COVID, the George Floyd protests or the Russia-Ukraine invasion, but the coverage it still gets to this day proves that it is, and will most likely continue to be notable. This may sound a bit too wild of a prediction, but perhaps when internet historians look back on the 2020s, they'll acknowledge Ludwig's subathon as one of the most significant moments of livestreaming history. Clearly if The New York Times of all places found it significant enough to discuss, then it's an event worth remembering.

Finally, what really dismisses the "routine" argument is how sources described it. It wasn't just a normal subathon stream - it led to Ludwig beating Ninja's record for all-time subscriptions. The sources mentioned here note that fact; most livestreams of this caliber generally don't break records, making this stand out from the pack. Also, the in-depth coverage of the NYT article contextualizes the subathon within the growth of Twitch during the pandemic, showing that it's not just some flash in the pan event or everyday occurrence. And most importantly, as aforementioned the subathon paved the way for other streamers to create their own version of the stream.

Overall, I believe the subathon is notable enough to justify a split from Ludwig's article. PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ludwig. It's an obviously notable event but I don't think it's independently notable. I think WP:UNDUE is the correct policy to cite here, but from the opposite direction. It's undue weight to write such a long article about this event; it should be summarized more succinctly on Ludwig's main page. I'm not even sure the subathon is the most notable event Ludwig has put on and I don't think he considers it such either. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ludwig Ahgren#Subathon. Axem put it perfectly so instead of copy/pasting I'll just say +1. Any non-trivia content on this topic more than adequately fits within the parent article's section. It's a stunt and it's covered in the above listed sources as a stunt within his larger livestreaming career. czar 19:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar and Axem Titanium: I really don't understand either of your rationales, so please bear with me to try to help me to understand. What policy does this cite? (I address the WP:UNDUE later)

Let's take the first part of the deletion rationale that Axem Titanium provided: "It's undue weight to write such a long article about this event; it should be summarized more succinctly on Ludwig's main page". WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with split-off articles: you could make that argument for determining how much text on Ludwig's subathon should be in Ludwig Ahgren's article, but not the article on the separate livestream. Or, that's like saying—(extreme example)—that we shouldn't have an article on the Pacific War because it's length is undue weight for World War II.

Another thing that Axem Titanium said. "I'm not even sure the subathon is the most notable event Ludwig has put on and I don't think he considers it such either". What's your point here? If they are notable and pass WP:EVENTCRIT, they deserve articles. Saying we should delete an article because similar articles don't have pages yet isn't a valid rationale to delete this page.

czar said "Any non-trivia content on this topic more than adequately fits within the parent article's section". I stopped expanding the article upon the AfD, but there's much more information to be added, such as information on earnings from the stream ([20], [21], [22]). czar also said "It's a stunt". It's a livestream; livestreams do streams to make money, that's how it is since that's their profession. Even if you consider it a publicity stunt, that doesn't mean it does not deserve an article. WP:NOT does not prohibit publicity stunts from having encyclopedia entries, and notable ones do; hell, even notable advertisements do.

Thank you for reading, and please respond with policy-based rationales for the deletion of this article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that UNDUE is not a deletion rationale. In fact, I have no policy-based rationales for deletion because I happen to not be advocating for deletion. My preference for merging stems from a desire for relevant information to be kept together whenever possible so the act of reading one single article provides said information at the proper level of detail in the proper context to understand it. Splitting necessitates a minimum amount of repetition and redundancy that I generally prefer to avoid. There are many notable things that would meet the strict criteria for articles that do not and should not have independent articles because they are more effectively covered within an existing article. For example, despite the fact that Joel and Ethan Coen have done plenty of solo work, they are both covered in a single article, Coen brothers, because 1) splitting them out individually---and possibly having a 3rd article covering them together---would have a tremendous amount of overlap, redundancy, and be difficult to maintain across multiple pages, and 2) it is far more effective to cover them both in a single article that tells their history in context with each other. Remember that we're writing articles for people to read and learn from, not to accumulate chits and awards for "most articles written" (cf. least publishable unit).

My rationale above questioned this event's independent notability. I think it's borderline, but it's possible that this event is only notable in the context of Ludwig himself and doesn't have notability divorced from him. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Furthermore, when all of the UNDUE detail is removed from the article, I think it will be plenty short enough to merge back to the main Ludwig article without running into UNDUE weight over there. Hence my suggestion to merge. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content could be covered in the parent article without any loss in fidelity. It's one of the basic tenets of summary style. If the section in the parent article became unwieldy, then sure, would be worth assessing a split, but the current article's play-by-play proseline of the stream is not content that belongs in either this article or the parent article. czar 02:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium: The comparison between the Coen brothers is not apples-to-apples. The individual people comprise the whole of the Coen brothers. There is little overlap between the scope of Ludwig Ahgren and his subathon; the subathon is not a part of him, it's a piece of entertainment he created. It's not much different than Guitar Songs being a separate article than Billie Eilish, for example. (Narrator (song) and Squid (band) for a more obscure example, also one I wrote). It would be WP:OFFTOPIC to talk about the earnings and reception of the subathon in a biography of Ahgren, just like it would be off topic to talk about the recording of Narrator (song) in a synopsis of Squid (band). This is why they are separate articles, the scope is different. The only difference between Guitar Songs / Narrator (song) and the subathon is that the subathon was created on a different medium, livestreaming. It's medium doesn't stop it from being a piece of entertainment that is separate from the person who created it.

@Czar: I have essentially the same reply to you. The scope of the articles is different: the subathon is not a subset of his life, it's something he did / created. Movie, TV show, and video games articles have plot summary-type sections frequently: album articles too. Why is a "play-by-play proseline of the stream" that is well-sourced an issue? WP:PROSELINE itself says that the best solution is turning proseline into direct prose or timelines, not removal of it. Trying to not WP:BLUDGEON; this should be my last reply here. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a "play-by-play proseline of the stream" that is well-sourced an issue?

Because it's trivia: it's stultifying to read and imparts nothing upon the reader. If written succinctly to inform the reader, removing the repetition of X viewers on Y day, it would be a fraction of its length and show that there is nothing remarkable being said, which is why sources similarly didn't cover the event with daily updates. If you don't see that by now, I don't think this AfD is going to convince you. Based on the sources, it's a matter of time before it's merged back into the parent article. czar 20:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Clearly divided over Keep or Merge options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references I saw clearly involve the specific event and there are enough that the event itself is notable. An example for comparison would be The Shot, which is an article about Michael Jordan's single play within a single game within a single playoff series within a single NBA finals series within a single NBA season, showing that Wikipedia has no restrictions on drilling down into individually notable events within other events that have their own notability (had it taken place today my guess would be every one of those elements above would have their own articles). The quality or length of an article is irrelevant for an AFD when the article topic is notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to his main article, I think is the best course. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the best course of action. I believe the level of detail here violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, but it can be preserved if it is summarized more succinctly. Archrogue (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Czar and Axem Titanium. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 03:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Czar and Axem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PerfectSoundWhatever, PantheonRadiance, and Macktheknifeau. Skyshifter ^talk 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant enough coverage by mainstream press to warrant a separate article. BBC, Kotaku, the NYT for goodness sake! SWinxy (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is always a pre-requisite to a standalone article, but it does not mean an article should always exist when something gets a significant amount of coverage, we have to also consider whether an article would be undue for the importance of whatever it is about. In this case it could easily be merged without readers losing any important information about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The strength of the sources is more than enough to show that having a stand alone article would not be "undue" weight. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll elaborate further my !vote with an analysis of WP:NEVENT. The criteria:
1. Enduring historical significance and meets GNG or has a lasting impact
  While it passes GNG (RSs like NYT and BBC; SIGCOV being deeply covered in NYT and Kotaku), the weakest argument in this list is it having a lasting impact. There was coverage ~2 weeks after the bulk of the coverage from ScreenRant and 10 months later in DotEsports. Realistically, a long-lasting impact would include more than just the DotEsports article.
2. Widespread impact and diverse sources
  Diverse sources would include mainstream and non-internet-focused publications. USA Today, the NYT, and the BBC's domains cover broad news, and for them to cover an internet event like this is unusual. That is, the event was able to break through to mainstream sources. I'd say the fact that USA Today covered it strongly implies a widespread impact.
3. Not lesser coverage or limited scope
  The coverage is not small in coverage or scope. The Kotaku article(s) and the NYT one are of medium length and go into detail.
4. Not routine coverage
  This is the easiest one to argue against. This isn't routine coverage of livestreams, but a novel event. Livestreams do not get routine coverage. I can remember Hbomberguy's similar charity stream that got coverage and an appearance from AOC, which was also not a routine type of coverage.
Overall, I'd consider it to pass NEVENT and GNG. I would not be opposed to a merger, but my !vote remains a keep. SWinxy (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep. notable enough in its own right. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rotterdam Termination Source[edit]

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

fails notability guidelines for bands. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 02:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 02:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly a WP:BEFORE search was not initiated as Google Books reveals several mentions of this band and their single "Poing" including the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World, Volume 11 and in Drum 'n' Bass: The Rough Guide. A Billboard article also described their single as a "genuine trendsetter". This is an easy keep for me. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Why? I Ask: that is not significant coverage. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 06:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, but it "addresses the topic directly and in detail", so it is. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
directly, sure, but that is not in detail. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is in detail. It's not just a single sentence, but a whole paragraph directly discussing its impact on gabber music. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which one? please specify. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 14:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia; and not to mention that several reputable descriptions of the song "Poing" being notable basically makes it so. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well, the bloomsbury encyclopedia is 936 pages long (according to google books), so a paragraph isn't much. and if the song is notable, then the song should have an article, not the band! lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 01:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the band also had another charting single. The band and the song are both notable, but there is not enough content to justify a split. An entry in any encyclopedia, even as just a paragraph in a large one, is grounds for notability. There are also many news articles and other books in Dutch that may also be helpful, but are unreadable to me. FutureMusic also lists "Poing" as an influential song in gabber. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 with chart hits in 3 countries and also has coverage in reliable sources identified above so deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. While this is a one hit wonder, there is sufficient coverage for WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. The article is a fine stub. gidonb (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hight[edit]

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

An author that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG nor the more specific WP:NAUTHOR. The only sources being used in the article are their own personal website and their publisher's website, neither of which are independent. I searched for any additional sources, and could not find any coverage of him in reliable sources. I also tried searching for sources or reviews on each of his four books, and only found database listings and "for sale" pages. Rorshacma (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Literature. Rorshacma (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no sources and no claim of notability. Andre🚐 23:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gajanan Yashwant Chitnis[edit]

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

local politician. fails WP:NPOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant, reliable, independent coverage turning up in English-language searches. From what I can tell (I cannot read or speak Marathi) there isn't really much in Marathi either. No evidence that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mill Creek Entertainment. ✗plicit 00:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NCircle Entertainment[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 02:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Texas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perviously deleted by PROD and restored via WP:REFUND, so ineligible for soft deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references all fail WP:NCORP. Can somebody take a look. scope_creep^Talk 04:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per scope creep. Andre🚐 23:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Merge per below. Andre🚐 00:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mill Creek Entertainment as WP:ATD, per the article content noting In 2019, Alliance Entertainment merged Mill Creek Entertainment and NCircle Entertainment into one company. I didn't find anything interesting in terms of meeting WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 05:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mill Creek Entertainment as WP:ATD as per Jumpytoo's logic, otherwise topic fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ioan Wetzer[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, could not find any significant coverage, not surprising as his playing years seem to be before 1945. Doesn't seem to have much success either. Database sources are obviously not enough. Source #3 mainly covers his brother Rudy (Rudolph), not Ioan (Johann). starship .paint (exalt) 02:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Romania. starship .paint (exalt) 03:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is a national team player, there are many players on wikipedia that have mainly only database sources, especially those who played before 1945, but most of these players appear on wikipedia because they played for the national team of their country. Press articles about could appear, I just found one, but again it is mainly focused on his brother, Rudolf. (User talk:Sebi1990TheSecond), 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. I am sure there are offline sources, but we currently don't have any. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Andre🚐 23:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Article about Romanian international footballer from the pre-internet area. If we had access to print sources, it's quite likely there would be SIGCOV available. It also appears he managed a Romanian first division club after he retired from playing. Jogurney (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not particularly notable. Nythar^T^.^C 08:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Three strong arguments for keep on policy grounds. There is only a few hours left until the deadline and there appears no chance the consensus will change in that time, and the submissions are unanimous with no active discussion ongoing. If anyone disagrees with my closure, let me know on my talk page and I will undo the close and leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Sporting Age[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The only sources that i could find are database or list-type books. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources are available. Scorpions13256 (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/107293757/sporting-age-2/

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/107293711/sporting-age/

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/107293788/sporting-age-3/

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/107500190/the-sporting-age-4 Scorpions13256 (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources listed above and on the article's talk page. Passes WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Andre🚐 23:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment updated to support WP:THREE and WP:NFILM. _-✍NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯
Keep As per above sources. Also the BFI notes that is was also known as The Stronger Love and was reviewed under that name in Kinematograph Weekly 17 May 1928 Piecesofuk (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Selfies[edit]

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

A book that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. The article has a reception section, but it does not actually include any inline citations to the reviews it discusses, and I could not find them. Additionally, at least one of them (the Northwich Guardian) appears to just be a small, non-notable local paper. I was unable to find any real reviews or coverage upon multiple searches - the best I could find were these two links, and neither one of them are what I would consider to be actual reviews. The author does not appear to be notable either, so there is no valid target to merge or redirect to as an alternative. Rorshacma (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Animal. Rorshacma (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – apparently no reviews and no other substantial coverage. I wasn't able to find the review, if it is a review, in Your Cat Magazine, but it's probably moot as Your Cat Magazine's probably not a reliable source. The Northwich Review's comments are on the website of its sister publication (?), the Knutsford Guardian, and they run to three short sentences. The only halfway viable source seems to be the puff piece in the Mirror, which alone counts for not very much. As the nominator says, there's no plausible redirect target and probably no scope to cover this in the enyclopaedia in any form. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arms&Hearts Andre🚐 23:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the two previous supporters for the deletion of this article. Pahiy (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Sports India[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG. all refs are just passing mentions about the organisation. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andre🚐 23:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are all passing mentions as the nominator points out. Not enough information to meet SIGCOV. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 16:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one of the sources cited appears not to be a press release about "budding hoopsters". Nowhere near enough independent coverage, and doesn't appear to be close to launch anytime soon. Smells deeply of paid editing: there's a discussion about this and related articles over at the COI noticeboard. Storchy (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Northwestern University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern University School of Education and Social Policy[edit]

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

Only outside source is USNEWS. Notability? More references are needed Wiseoleman17 (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not especially notable. Lacks outside references--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Northwestern. Andre🚐 23:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Northwestern. --Bduke (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Northwestern University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern University School of Professional Studies[edit]

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

Borderline, not enough outside references. Notability? Wiseoleman17 (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited from its notable parent organization and there do not appear to be sufficient independent, substantive sources to establish notability. (Sources may exist and I missed them in my cursory search; the school is nearly 90 years old so it's plausible that someone has written an independent history or other substantive documents.) ElKevbo (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not especially notable. Lacks outside references--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Northwestern. Andre🚐 23:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Northwestern. --Bduke (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Northwestern University. ✗plicit 01:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern University School of Communication[edit]

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

Not enough secondary sources, notability Wiseoleman17 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not especially notable. Lacks outside references--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Northwestern. Andre🚐 23:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Northwestern. --Bduke (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auto EVO[edit]

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

Company seems to lack in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP (as opposed to coverage of individual products). MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Italy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom. Unable to find articles about the company vs. its cars. Zeddedm (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Andre🚐 23:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOKRUMENTAL[edit]

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

Not a clear A7, already draftified before. Lack of reliable, independent and significant sources. Fails NMUSIC. ~Styyx^Talk? 01:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poland. ~Styyx^Talk? 01:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Am I the only one who is unimpressed by the recent crop of musicians WHO YELL THEIR NAMES as if that makes them more important? This band has gotten some airplay here and there, but sources briefly mentioning such airplay is all they have, and that does not qualify for the significant and reliable coverage that is required here. Otherwise they're only visible in the usual streaming and social media directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources are streaming services and youtube, no news found, nothing of note. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG is not met. No pl wiki interwiki is a red flag too (and pl wiki is very inclusive when it comes to musical topics, so if the topic isn't good enough for pl wiki, it certainly isn't ready for en wiki). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Rahnavardi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Never previously made the top 10 in either Fight Matrix or Sherdog's top 10 rankings. Also fails WP:GNG, couldn't find any significant or in-depth coverage on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and California. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and none of the coverage I found appears to meet WP:GNG. Coverage is primarily fight databases with some results thrown in, but nothing I'd call significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] United States Department of Defense (1964). Electronic Communication Equipment. pp. 27–29.

[2] Chief of Naval Operations (1961). All-weather Flight Manual. pp. 7-4 to 7-6.

[3] Aircraft Accident and Maintenance Review. Vol. 11–12. Inspector General of the Department of the Air Force. 1956. p. 19.

[4] United States Department of the Army (1962). Field Artillery Communications. pp. 85–86.

[5] Infantry. Vol. 47–48. U.S. Army Infantry School. 1957. pp. 32–33.

[6] "Military radio". The Gazette (Cedar Rapids). 17 September 1983. p. 56. Retrieved 11 August 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

[7] Department of Defense Appropriations for 1958; Hearings Before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Eighty-fifth Congress, First Session · Volume 11, Part 2. United States House Committee on Appropriations. 1957. pp. 52–53.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]