Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 17	February 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celsius Network[edit]

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

Delete Not very notable, citations to own publications (Oskar Solberg), general re-writing into promotional tone, removal of controversies. EVhotrodder (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not that notable so I would remove it NanoLock66 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete in my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC) (talk) 169.147.254.128 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks in-depth sources, doesn't meet WP:NCORP. - MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find any references that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:00, 23 February 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 redirect to Iván Noel#List of films. Reasonable ATD and don't think this is a violation of the prior PROD since that was removed by the PRODder who was also the AfDer. There doesn't appear to be any actual objection to the PROD and I don't see a relist helping with consensus given AFD volume. Star Mississippi 03:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brecha (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail requirements in WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since August 2021 DonaldD23 talk to me 18:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iván Noel#List of films. I can find no thing to establish notability for a standalone article. Whpq (talk) 23:43, 24 February 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 00:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queens of Camo[edit]

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

A television program and social group that does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. The current sourcing is very weak, and searching for any additional sources turns up no actual coverage - there are some database sites listing the show, and a few very brief namedrops, but that's about it. As the show and group appear to be now largely defunct (the official site is now a dead link), its doubtful that any additional sources or notability will be forthcoming. While my first thought was that this could be potentially redirected to Nicholas Barton (filmmaker), the show's creator, a cursory look at that article and its sources leads me to doubt that he is actually notable himself. Rorshacma (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article only cites three sources, two of which seem to be inaccessible, which doesn't really prove notability.DirkJandeGeer (щи) 21:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - offline sources can also contribute to notability. matt91486 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the networks they're 'featured' on are actual television networks, but brokered Roku channels, and the claims of 'criticism' by hunting and vegan activists read like unsourced astroturfing. Being 'closer to their fanbase' can easily be disproved as the DFW Metroplex has a better television production base than Wichita. Social presences and website are dead, and generally 'social movements' for women (which generally don't involve hunting) aren't started by men like Nicholas Barton, whose article could also do with an AfD. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 19 February 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 Salgues does not meet the GNG based on accessible sourcing. If someone wants to incubate in draft space, just ping. Star Mississippi 03:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Salgues[edit]

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

Following a recent RfC, the Fed Cup was removed from WP:NTENNIS and therefore Salgues no longer has automatic notability. Also worth mentioning that she only played in regional group games in 2002 Fed Cup Americas Zone and 2003 Fed Cup Americas Zone according to BJK Cup rather than the latter stages of the tournament. The 10K doubles tournaments don't confer notability either.

I conducted a few searches and found mostly database and stats coverage. Google and DDG returned no useful results. WP:GNG does not appear to be met on current evidence. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This player meets the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. A tennis player is presumed notable if he/she:

Has competed in one of the international team competitions: Billie Jean King Cup vs fed cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup. User:Vecihi91^{User talk:Vecihi91} 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delte there is not sourcing to the level of meeting GNG. It is also high time we drop all notability guidelines that say that just because someone was in a competition we will keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This rule still applies so it's ridiculous to be nominated for deletion.User:Vecihi91^{User talk:Vecihi91} 13:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sports SNGs require thatthe subject meets GNG, which is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines is a WikiProject essay and not an official policy or guideline. The fact that this article fails the SNG (WP:NTENNIS) and general notability (WP:GNG) is way more important. Do you have any significant coverage of this player at all? I've struck your second vote. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Vecihi91 do you have any evidence of significant coverage for Salgues? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 23 February 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!} 04:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evgenios Lazaridis[edit]

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

My before search in English only found passing mentions in relation to his fight with Agit Kabayel. My results were slightly better in Greek, with this and this, but they don't give much significant coverage of the subject, only details of sparring other boxers and a fight that never happened. Fails WP:NBOX and appears to fail WP:GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 22:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only did that fight not happen, it apparently was not going to be for the EBU heavyweight championship, but rather for its lesser EU title[1]. My search turned up nothing to show he meets either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 18 February 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. ✗plicit 01:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Kirczenow[edit]

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

A deletion alert for this article was posted a while ago by an account which is now blocked. That being said there are questions about the notability of this Wikipedia page. The article remains on Wikipedia primarily for the subject's notability as a researcher that may be the case, though arguably not. It appears that this page is on Wikipedia as a researcher, though the article seems to be written almost as a political candidate page/flyer. Looking at the subject's name on Wikipedia, though only appear as a political candidate on various pages. The subject of the page has only run as a candidate in multiple elections, finishing second. As a politician this subject does not meet WP:NOTABILITY at all. The work as a researcher and as an advocate does appear to be substantive. The question remains as to whether this really meets notability to remain on Wikipedia. If the conclusion is the article meets notability, it should be rewritten to a neutral tone and all deletion templates removed.

For my part I doubt this article is a notable one and it appears to be a page to boost political profile of a secondary political candidate. I would nominate to delete though I would love to hear others opinions to resolve. Words in the Wind(talk) 22:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG, with no prejudice to recasting of artcle, but the Add is not clean-up. Djflem (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is such an obvious WP:GNG pass I don't really know what else to say. -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I will add, for anyone reading this who is unfamiliar with Canadian politics, that the "boost political profile of a secondary political candidate" assertion has no real basis - the riding he runs in hasn't flipped since 2000, and is in no serious danger of doing so in the 2025 federal election either. A Wikipedia article isn't going to make much of a difference to his political profile. -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: definitely meets GNG. There is sufficient significant coverage by independent, reliable, secondary sources including The Atlantic, The Guardian, and The National Post. No comment on any issues with the article, except to say that they aren't issues for AfD and none seem significant enough that WP:TNT would be reasonable. Firefangledfeathers 06:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made in Baltics[edit]

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

There isn't any significant coverage about the company. Sources in the article are mostly namedrops, with the aim of a WP:REFBOMB. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - The related page List of Made In Baltics artists currently also has a AfD discussion and it is hard to determine the appropriate response to this AfD until the result of that process has completed. Gusfriend (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gusfriend: that article has now been deleted at AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - Comments I am not against this article, I really had a problem with the multiple short mini articles all related to one subject. There seem to be a number of issues surrounding this that need addressing. The other AfD posted above really needs resolving first. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more sources can be found to demonstrate the label's notability. I have now re-merged in the items and references from List of Made In Baltics artists; the creator of both this article and its two related lists, PauliineMitt, had previously incorporated the contents of List of Made In Baltics singles, so the article should now contain all the information and references we have about the label. I used ref names for a couple of repeated references that I spotted, removed the duplicate listing of artists from the intro while making sure we were citing its references, removed all the DAB pages I could identify and added what interwiki links I could to demonstrate that some of the redlinked artists have articles on Estonian Wikipedia. The article has a history of rejection by reviewers as not demonstrating notability: it has been both PRODded and draftified and then was rejected at AfC before being recreated. There is also a suspicion of conflict-of-interest editing, which has been denied by PauliineMitt. This is a recently established label, founded in 2018. From going through the article, which I have wound up extensively rewriting, I have the impression its main claims to notability are the association with Ewert and The Two Dragons and the Estonian Record Label Of The Year award. But I don't see that the article actually documents Ewert and The Two Dragons releasing recordings with Made In Baltics; most of the references about that group in the article, including in the Acclaim section, refer to before 2018, neither of their albums cited as highly successful was released on Made In Baltics, I looked for mention of Made In Baltics in the reference for their 2021 live album release and found none, and I've added a "clarification needed" tag to the statement that the group began its association with Made In Baltics in 2009. Perhaps 2019? Perhaps the association is actually with Ewert Sundja [et] and Erki Pärnoja [et], both founder members of the group? (Here on en., Sundja is a redirect to the group article.) Also, the article claims that associated artists have an impressive set of achievements "[t]hroughout its existence"; that needs references to establish that the achievements were while the artists were with Made In Baltics, not before. The claimed awards to the label's founder also need sourcing. And most fundamentally, I don't see evidence of much having been published in third-party sources about the label itself, as opposed to someone having released something on the label. It's possible that such sources exist, and/or sources establishing that the label's line-up is truly stellar and it has released several hit records. But I can't read Estonian to check whether the existing sources simply aren't being effectively cited to demonstrate this, or whether such sources exist and we aren't citing them. So as it stands I agree with the earlier reviewers that notability is not demonstrated; but PauliineMitt now has a better understanding of the requirements for a page, and may be able to fix that referencing problem by showing that the sources do demonstrate notability, referencing the unsupported claims in the article, and/or tracking down extended coverage of the company. If she or someone else can do so, I'll happily change my !vote to a keep, and in the meantime I've tried with my consolidation and rewriting to make the article clearer in its claims and references, to assist in that task as well as in evaluating it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Query: Would this make sense as merger to and intro for List of Made In Baltics singles which could do with more prose? Star Mississippi 03:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't ask anymore of Yngvadottir and I agree with her summary above, NCORP notability criteria have not been met. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, particularly agreeing with the WP:REFBOMB comment. So many references for such a short article, none of them really covering the subject in any detail. Ifnord (talk) 23:04, 26 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Global, Inc.[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. There’s no WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:SIRS can not be applied and a before search turns up nothing concrete. I see self published sources, user generated sources and other sources that have no reputation for fact checking. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps grounds for speedily? Pure promotion, badly sourced, and guessing it might all be a scam. W Nowicki (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable source about this company and it contains a lot promotional, and covered advertisement.Katobara (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable/independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long list of buzzwords but no reference provided that this company is actually leading the research in any of those fields. Pichpich (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed; despite the valiant refbombing, there doesn't appear to be a single solid source cited. (If the author wishes to, they are welcome to point to the three best sources providing sigcov, and I'll happily review them.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I smell a paid or promo article. No notability whatsoever. Tons of buzzwords. Over referenced and half the references are generic research papers or definition’s - doesn’t prove the company provides the services listed etc.GeekBurst (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hmm I checked some of these citations and they don't even mention the company. Someone is trying to sneak one through. Zeddedm (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. Not only is the article very promotional in tone, the edit summary for the article's creation edit reads "As these emerging technologies are important additions to the greater technology sector, able to make helpful upgrades and additions to existing technologies." This appears to be a clear-cut attempt to promote the company via Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I'm not really sure why the CSD had to be declined here; the consensus in this page seems quite clear and multiple editors have noted that the article is entirely promotional, which would make it eligible for G11. It doesn't really make much sense to let the discussion run its course when the outcome is unlikely to change anyway. Even if an argument is made that a snow close is inappropriate, at the very least the article does seem to be G11-eligible and there's no prohibition against speedily deleting an article that's already been AFD'd (and indeed it's a relatively common occurrence). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Letting the discussion continue for its final two days provides a stronger form of consensus than speedy deletion. For instance it would allow G4 in the future. You found the article because someone mentioned it on Discord (same as I did) which is another reason to let this play out. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional content present, sources are not reliable. Timetraveller80 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Variantology[edit]

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

Not notable at all. This is a relatively obscure scholarly project. The sources do not even mention the topic, except for two that are directly linked to the person who coined the term (one of them does not contain any actual information). The tag to improve the references has been in place for four years. Google Scholar only seems to mention chapters in books that are edited by the same person. Search for 'desconstruction' on Quora (a seemingly related area) and you'll get 5.300 results, search for 'variantology' and you get none. Japkiw (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia:GNG, only two of the sources actually seem to mention the article topic and are quite poor. Article also feels like it was written by someone who has a vested interest in the article and thus doesn't meet Wikipedia:NPOV. GoldMiner24 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 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 23:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Reflections[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf on an IP editor. Rationale below.

This was originally prodded by Bri with the rationale that it failed WP:NCORP, which was contested by an IP due to the blogto source. There was then a bit of an edit war where a newbie tried to get it deleted by repeatedly re-prodding it. I think that there is a legitimate discussion about notability to be had here, because looking at the article I tend to agree that this is an WP:NCORP fail with only one of the sources in the article coming close to being usable (and even then its not great in my opinion).
The first source here is blogto. I'm not convinced this is a reliable source, it seems to be a cross between a blog and a news portal, and its terms and conditions page states that it accepts user generated and sponsored content. In my opinion this source is at best "meh" quality.

The second source is a two paragraph announcement in a local newspaper that the brand is opening a store in a local mall. This is a completely WP:ROUTINE piece of business coverage.

The third source is a trivial mention - it's a detailed article on another clothing retailer shutting down which includes a throwaway remark that the holding company behind the retailer also owns Northern Reflections.

The fourth source is a trivial mention - it's a local newspaper reporting on a charity fashion show that includes a thanks to Northern Reflections for donating the clothes.

The fifth source is a business directory, again routine\trivial coverage

The sixth and seventh source are the same thing, a press release about the company getting a loan.
I think that at best we have one 6 paragraph long "Meh" source here, so I don't see how this company passes WP:NCORP.

Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete This seems to be a decently sized company but I can't really find any independent sources that provide much more than a passing mention of the business, fails WP:NCORP. GoldMiner24 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appear to be a number of sources available according to ProQuest (website). A search for "Northern Reflections" Guelph returns about 60 hits, of which at least a handful are specifically about the company. (A less restrictive search should find more, but the term "northern reflections" is used for many other purposes by media.) I cannot access the articles to determine whether they satisfy sourcing criteria, but I suspect they do. Mind matrix 00:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Mindmatrix, I get ProQuest access through my public library, as many people do (did you try this?). Twelve of the sources concern an art show at Guelph City Hall called "Rotunda Gallery Northern Reflections", and two are press releases. One is a hit on an unrelated title of an artwork by Robert Bateman (painter). The remaining 15 sources are the routine and trivial stuff referred to by the nominator except this one: Klotz, Hattie (23 Aug 2001), "Northern Reflections returns to its roots: Store tried to attract younger set", The Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Ont. Not sufficient for WP:NCORP ☆ Bri (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A null article. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:25, 20 February 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 01:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lau Hing Tat[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. PepperBeast (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. No SIGCOV, most results on a search shows self-published resources. UphillAthlete (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are three sources I found about Patrick Lau Hing Tat (traditional Chinese: 劉興達; simplified Chinese: 刘兴达):
1. Chen, Bonnie (2015-03-02). "Landscape wizard: A deep passion for biology and geography prompted Patrick Lau Hing-tat to take up landscape architecture". The Standard. Archived from the original on 2022-02-14. Retrieved 2022-02-14.
  The article notes: "A deep passion for biology and geography prompted Patrick Lau Hing-tat to take up landscape architecture. Now, chairman of landscape architectural firm Earthasia International (6128), Lau relishes his profession as it allows him to have a strong positive impact on the environment. Currently, there are only 100 licensed landscape architects in Hong Kong, making them an elite but unique group of professionals. ... He has been outspoken in the past about the environment, drawing the attention of senior officials in the government who then decided to tap his expertise. Lau is a member of the Town Planning Board and the Lands and Development Advisory Committee. In the past, he was a Eastern District Councillor and a member of the Harbourfront Commission."
2. Wong, Olga (2013-03-10). "Veteran architect Patrick Lau calls for public input into PLA berth design: Architect says there is a lack of trust over plans for the Central waterfront and how open the facility will be when the military is not using it". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-02-14. Retrieved 2022-02-14.
3. Wong, Olga (2013-08-26). "Qianhai special zone architect Patrick Lau plans water and greenery for pedestrians". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-02-14. Retrieved 2022-02-14.
The first source provides significant biographical coverage about the subject. The other two sources provide some biographical information about the subject in the context of interview material.
Cunard (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the sources Cunard provided and establish consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete Article subject has some notability but I believe article fails WP:GNG. The sources that cunard commented still don't help the article's case much. GoldMiner24 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Bakhsh Safari[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria as he has no fights in a top tier promotion. Also fails WP:GNG as his fight coverage is mainly through routine sports report.

I am not 100% sure about the medals but these aren't competitions I have heard off like ADCC, etc. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources for his MMA career are even given, his most notable appearances have been for EagleFC which is not top tier, or even second tier for that matter, so WP:MMABIO is definitely failed. As for his grappling achievements, they don't seem notable enough for to pass WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 09:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable as an MMA fighter. I looked up his record at the JJIF. What the article calls the "World Championships India", the JJIF calls the "South Asian Open", clearly quite different in magnitude. The JJIF records show he has appeared in one division at one JJIF world championship event, where he lost in the round of 16. I don't believe that's enough to show notability as a martial artist. I also didn't find coverage to show WP:GNG is met. Several of the references in the article, which are merely statements of results, actually say they are quoting his Facebook posts while others are Facebook posts themselves. I don't see evidence that convinces me that he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with User RafaelHP and Papaursa, subject fails both NMMA and GNG. Cassiopeia talk 22:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article as per GNG, not enough sources. Timetraveller80 (talk) 09:07, 25 February 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 23:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrubens Dupalus[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in independent sources (all I could find were databases or things like the facebook page of his club). The "national" team for this French "collectivity" with some 35,000 inhabitants is not FIFA-recognised. But in the end, the most important aspect is that there just isn't any real coverage of this person[2][3] Fram (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-guidelines for notability say that players have to play for a FIFA-RECOGNIZED team, not necessarily a FIFA member. The CONCACAF Nations League is sanctioned by a FIFA member confederation and Dupalus has also appeared against other nations that are themselves FIFA members. Precedent has been established that these players are in fact considered notable under the guidelines.--Gri3720 (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These NSPORTS guidelines are being debated and reevaluated now as they are way too inclusive and not a good indicator of notability at all, as indicated by e.g. this very article. The national teams for such sub-national or otherwise very small entities are filled with a few notable and many non notable players. Fram (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We must debate this article's notability by current guidelines, not by POTENTIAL future alterations.--Gri3720 (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That´s the eternal argument used to maintain poor guidelines. Afds are kept because they meet a guideline, and guidelines are kept because they only describe what happens at Afd, and don´t prescribe it. Fram (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not necessarily arguing that the guidelines shouldn't be looked at from time to time to see if they still meet their purpose, but they are currently what they are. Until the group reaches an agreement on any changes, which you say are currently being discussed, you don't get to unilaterally decide to disregard to try to force a deletion. Also, please link to the current discussion that you mention. I was unable to locate any such discussion in the archives or list of current discussions.--Gri3720 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability Fram (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you mention in no way shows a clear consensus. In fact it seems opposition to changing the guideline has the advantage. In either case this proposal to amend/throw out the current guidelines will fail without a clear consensus. And AGAIN, you cannot (well, I guess you can TRY) delete an article based on a hypothetical future change in policy.--Gri3720 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 0 official international caps means he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as it is currently written...and more importantly fails GNG. Giant Snowman 19:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFT is poor at evaluating official and non-official games. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not even meet our ludicrously over broad NFOOTBALL guidelines, we clearly need to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any detailed coverage, even when searching in ProQuest, DDG and other search engines Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 25 February 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 Mazon. ✗plicit 23:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mazon (surname)[edit]

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

Redundant. I'm not quite sure if it's necessary.Tame (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the dab page Mazon. There's no need for a separate page if it only provides navigation for two people with the name. – Uanfala (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with dab page Mazon, per Uanfala.Sal2100 (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the dab page. Two people isn't enough to warrant spinning a surname page off as a separate article from the dab page; this might be justifiable if there were a lot of people, or if the surname page actually contained reliably sourced information about the history and meaning of the surname, but it's not needed just to list two people separately from a disambiguation page that repeats both of the same two people and lists just six other topics. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 25 February 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death Eater[edit]

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

This article is entirely a product of WP:FANCRUFT. It's mostly unsourced with no signs of notability. Of its 19 sources, 11 are from the Harry Potter books, 3 are from the official site of the author, 3 are from fansites of dubious reliability. The remaining 2 are about Lucius Malfoy and only tangentially about the organization. Its lede can be moved to Fictional universe of Harry Potter and the article redirected there. Characters and their redirects can be moved/retargeted to List of Harry Potter characters. Isabelle ^🔔 16:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 16:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 16:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 16:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 16:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect agree with the merge as discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Harry Potter characters as an WP:ATD. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge with List of Harry Potter characters Star Mississippi 19:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the result is merge, some characters would have to go to List of supporting Harry Potter characters. —El Millo (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, as the topic is notable: [4], [5] (well....), [6], [7]. I'm sure there are better sources overall, but Scholar should be more exhaustively searched before we give up on this topic as NN. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, given that the article has zero assertion of significance, and having just spend over half an hour finding and presenting an analysis of sources in my BEFORE (keep, btw) comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacquotte Delahaye, I am not very interested in checking the WP:GOOGLEHITS User:Jclemens presented above. If there is something useful in them, please provide an analysis and quotations, otherwise, it's, well, GOOGLEHITS. If someone can't be bothered to discuss the sources they found, in my experience, this too often means there is nothing substantial in them. And by all means, prove me wrong and tell us how those sources contain SIGCOV that proves the notability of the topic, ping me and I'll gladly revise my vote. PS. Few months ago we merged this list to the general list of HP characters on pl wiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS is about quantity of search results, and has nothing to do with my findings, which are all from Google Scholar. In my experience, if an editor can't be bothered to click on any of four grossly curated links, but can spend time complaining about the lack of commentary thereon, they demonstrate an unwillingness to expend effort to comprehend the topic's potential notability and their opinion should be weighed accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your first link is to page 113 of A Wizard of Their Age: Critical Essays from the Harry Potter Generation, the first page of the chapter "The Nuances of Mastering Death: Murder, Capital Punishment, and Assisted Suicide" by Kalie Caetano, where the collocation "Death Eater(s)" does not appear. Your second link is to the essay "An Analysis of Presupposition Used in Novel Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" from the Faculty of Language and Arts at the State University of Padang, where the collocation "Death Eater(s)" appears as part of the quoted line If it was a Death Eater we would be dead by now. from the novel and the authors' further analysis that this means that it is not in fact a Death Eater (an example of a counterfactual presupposition). Your third link is to page 213 of A Wizard of Their Age: Critical Essays from the Harry Potter Generation (i.e. the same book as the first link), a page that I am unable to access via Google Books but the search function tells me that the collocation "Death Eater(s)" appears in the sentence Even though, later, as Voldemort he is surrounded by his Death Eater "friends," they aren't truly friends. Your fourth link is to the student publication Harry Potter and the Meaning of Death by Harrison D. Brown at Gettysburg College, where the collocation "Death Eater(s)" appears eight times (none of which are in the abstract or keywords): In Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, we learn that Lord Voldemort went to kill Lily and James who had been fighting against him and his evil followers, the Death Eaters., Unfortunately, at the end of the book, a battle takes place in the Ministry between Voldemort's forces called the Death Eaters and the Order, along with Harry and some friends. Sirius battles his cousin, a Death Eater named Bellatrix, around a magical "veil" that is supposed to separate our world from the "beyond"., Harry and Dumbledore are arriving back at Hogwarts, where Death Eaters are attacking the school. They land on the Astronomy tower, only to be met by Death Eaters and Harry's enemy Draco Malfoy. Harry is paralyzed by Dumbledore and made invisible by his Invisibility Cloak so that the Death Eaters cannot see him. Malfoy reveals he has been trying to kill Dumbledore all school year, with various methods and having no success. Suddenly Professor Snape, a friend of Dumbledore's and a former Death Eater, arrives., and Dobby is killed while saving Harry and his friends from a Death Eater's house, a final act of friendship and sacrifice for Harry. Methinks Piotrus was right to be skeptical. TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, experience with such google hit 'keep' votes does warrant it. And certain users do like to repeat this tactic too, which is hardly best practices. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll proudly keep repeating it any time I see a nomination that lacks a sensible BEFORE effort, as judged by the nom not mentioning any efforts and me finding News or Scholar links worth reviewing. It's me donating my time to do the nominator's job. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but nuke most of the in-universe content. Notability of this group is shown in these sources, which are mostly full chapters focused on Death Eaters:

"Death Eaters and Dark Wizards: Terror and Counterterror" in The Politics of Harry Potter, pp 95-115: "Could there be a more archetypal terrorist1 organization than the Death Eaters? Their masks, their love of theatrics, their choice of targets and tactics with powerful emotional impact, and their ability to hide in plain sight— in many ways they are the quintessential 'terrorist group' as it has been constructed in the popular collective consciousness, and they similarly bedevil the “legitimate” power of the Ministry to stop them."
"Crime : "Or dear Bellatrix, who likes to play with her food before she eats it" : why we need Death Eaters" in The sociology of Harry Potter : 22 enchanting essays on the wizarding world
"Death Eaters and Discrimination" in Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy : Hogwarts for Muggles
"Voldemort, Death Eaters, dementors, and the dark arts : a contemporary theology of spiritual perversion in the Harry Potter stories" in The lure of the dark side : Satan and western demonology in popular culture

Also, to extract from the Jclemens's sources above:

A Wizard of Their Age: Critical Essays from the Harry Potter Generation index has Death Eaters on pages 77–78, 103, 110, 203, 230-232 (the multi-page ones are more likely significant coverage)
Reading Harry Potter Again: New Critical Essays index has Death Eaters on pages 2, 18-19, 79-80, 86, 143-145, 149-50, 153-54 (multi-page items likely have significant coverage)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik Your first reference is not bad, but did you check if the others contain any SIGCOV? Have you seen critique of sources by User:TompaDompa above? It was posted, I think, after your list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to check directly because of not being able to view the pages, but what I found specifically had "Death Eaters" in the chapter title, which I think indicates a strong likelihood of covering them. As for Jclemens's sources, I do not find the thesis/student-paper sources to be reliable, but the actual books he named, I looked and found Death Eaters on their index pages but could not see the actual pages. Like I mentioned, multi-page mentions tend to mean more detailed discussion, though not always. Regardless, if the article is kept, it needs to be cut down to a simple stub. The degree of in-universe content is atrocious. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is the result of months of discussions within the (former?) Harry Potter Portal years ago, since there existed individual articles on almost every single Death Eater (including Lucius Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, Igor Karkaroff, etc.) Per Wikipedia:Notability, "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."" In this case, since the List of supporting Harry Potter characters is/was already long enough to get entries from an entire group like the Death Eaters, it was decided to merge such individual articles into the already existing "Death Eater" article that just covered the topic on the organization. Certainly, the article has to be written in an encyclopedic way, but not deleted. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Opeth That's a fair assessment, the question is, can it be written in an encyclopedic way at all, and if so, will this be done now, and if not, should this be temporarily redirected until this happens? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus it can definitely be written in an encyclopedic way. Two key sections are important here: Creation/Development, and Reception/Impact in popular culture. We can start by creating the Reception section, incorporating some of the stuff other editors have listed and looking for more (it will obviously need to have the Expansion tag at the beginning of the section). --LoЯd ۞pεth 15:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Opeth The problem is that those section still don't exist, do they? Until they do, a SOFTDELETE redirect, getting read of the in-universe fancruft, is IMHO preferable. As I said, I'd be happy to revise my vote to a possible keep if someone starts fixing the article (by adding such sections). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARTN states, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

Also, WP:SOFTDELETE states, "There is consensus among the community that problematic or likely-problematic articles with an appropriate redirection target may be blanked and redirected by any editor if there are no objections. This similarly applies to deletion nominations as well; if no editor suggests that the corresponding article should be kept, then redirection is an option." There are numerous editors advocating to keep. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, trim, improve. I think with the sources found it would be possible to write at least a paragraph of analysis, e.g. based on the quote from Death Eaters and Dark Wizards: Terror and Counterterror. Or in Reading Harry Potter Again: New Critical Essays preview shows things like "Rowling inscribes the ideology of Voldemort in different ways: using the words of Karl Marx...the Death Eaters, are dressed alternatively in feudal, fascist, and Thatcherite ideologies..." linking them to both the "aristocratic elite" and "the welfare state" (p. 132) "The name Death Eaters suggests the swallowing of darkness, of lies - chiefly in order to preserve their parasitic leader." (p. 80) "Horrible as they are, the Death Eaters are eerily childish with Voldemort,... All those who embrace falsehood in these books evidence some form of arrested development..." (p. 86). Daranios (talk) 12:04, February 22, 2022 (UTC)
Keep per the suggestions of @Jclemens:, @Erik:, @Lord Opeth:, and @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and trim) per the suggestions above. /Julle (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others and WP:NEXIST, it seems like an encyclopedic article can come of it based on the provided sources in this discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:35, 26 February 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!} 23:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Montreal[edit]

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

WP:IINFO. Full of WP:OR due to an utter lack of sourcing. No other province or territory of Canada has its own list of songs about it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the "sources" used is already a list of these songs, I don't see the value in duplicating it here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. --Vaco98 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's interesting local trivia but per WP:IINFO, Wikipedia is not for lists of trivia. Note that source #3 is an article that lists songs by musicians who are from Montreal but few of the songs therein are about the city itself. A quick-spot check of this WP article reveals that many of the songs listed (except for those literally titled "Montreal" and the like) only name-drop the city and are not about it as the article title implies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Lists of songs about a city has a lot of list like this. Those I clicked on don't have references either so I just exported their most recent versions to https://list.fandom.com/ in case anyone is interested in finding that information. Some might be interested in what songs were written about their city. Dream Focus 05:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate something I noticed for this Montreal article, many of the list articles in that category are badly polluted with entries that only mention the city briefly, and only a portion of the entries are about the city. The word about has been stretched quite badly throughout Wikipedia for pretty insignificant trivia purposes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SBKSPP (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sole reference discussing songs about Montreal is a self-published blog. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:36, 22 February 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!} 23:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oteng Baah[edit]

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

Despite playing 92 mins of professional football in the second tier of Serbia over five years ago then disappearing, I could find nothing to indicate a passing of WP:GNG nor any sign of any future professional career that would give reason to draftify the article. Neither of the hits in Google News are relevant, DDG has nothing of value and ProQuest had one hit but it's about a different person of the name 'Andrew Oteng Baah' and the article relates to basketball not football. A technical WP:NFOOTBALL pass but GNG doesn't look to be met so consensus is usually to delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with 92 minutes he fails the spirit of NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 08:33, 19 February 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!} 23:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bükrek and Sangal[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG and there is no evidence in WP:RS that such a myth truly exists. See my explanations at the DYK nomination: this article initially relied on Türk Söylence Sözlüğü by Deniz Karakurt, which is a self-published e-book by an accountant, with its references section explicitly stating that it features "original interpretation" and citing Wikipedia as well as a novel by the book's author. Following its self-publication in 2011, Wikipedia was used a forum to disseminate the claims in this book, to such an extent that I am currently carrying out a systematic cleanup on tr.wiki, where I'm an administrator. There are a bunch of other sources that are either completely unreliable (again, see DYK discussion) or can be traced back to Karakurt's book, for example, the master's thesis by Hilal Sansar, currently cited in the article, cites a book by Bahattin Uslu (2017, Türk Mitolojisi), which in turn refers back to Karakurt for all information about Bükrek and Sangal. As such, all post-2011 literature should be viewed with caution.

The Gazete Duvar source, currently within the article, refers to another recent book by Bülent Uslu, which I haven't been able to access; however I can confirm that Bülent Uslu has no academic credentials related to this topic. The current content in the article about the Pelasgians has absolutely no relevance established in WP:RS to a Turkic dragon and as such is a WP:SYNTH violation.

Finally, as detailed in the DYK nom, I have checked some volumes of reliable academic literature in Turkish, including two books with chapters on mythical dragons, and none mentioned Bükrek or Sangal. All of this makes me think that these dragons are fictitious later inventions. The article has been deleted on tr.wiki as the result of an AfD. GGT (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. GGT (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. GGT (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, I have no objection to this being deleted, nor being kept if someone improves it. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Victor Trevor (talk) 18:01, 18 February 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 keep. We don't need to sit around for a week with this one. WP:NPOL pass proven; WP:DINCU applies. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Hussain Shah[edit]

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

A substantial article most of which was removed in 2011, lacking proper references, leaving a stub mostly about his brother. Rathfelder (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have sources showing that Syed Zakir Hussain Shah was a Member of the Provincial Assembly ([8][9]), which is enough to meet WP:NPOL crit. 1. (I imagine someone familiar with Punjabi/Urdu-language sources could likely find more coverage, but the NPOL pass is good enough for now.) Syed Jaffer Hussain Shah does not seem to be notable, and it's not really apparent why he's been coatracked into this article, but that problem can be resolved by simply removing the sentences that don't pertain to Zakir. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:35, 19 February 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 British deception formations in World War II. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XXV Indian Corps[edit]

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

Per the below sources, there was no XXV Indian Corps. A XXV Corps was formed on Cyprus, but only as a deception formation. That corps has been recorded on List of British deception formations in World War II. This article was cited to a website that is now dead. I was not able to use the wayback machine to see what the website stated when it was live. Per the sources, it seems that a phantom formation was confused with an actual one.

Holt, Thaddeus (2004). The Deceivers: Allied Military Deception in the Second World War. New York: Scribner. ISBN 978-0-743-25042-9.
Virk, Diljit Singh (1982). Indian Army Post Offices in the Second World War. New Delhi: The Army Postal Service Association. OCLC 655800129.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No page is needed if this phantom unit is already covered in another one.TH1980 (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British deception formations in World War II, which has fuller information on the shadow formation than this article, though it calls it XXV Corps! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British deception formations in World War II seems like the most appropriate course of action. We might also want to add this to the XXV Corps disambiguation page. Pichpich (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Adding a mention to the XXV Corps dab also seems like a solid idea. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:41, 24 February 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!} 23:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fitzpatrick[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and more specifically WP:AUTHOR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And aside from the nom's comments, the article was created by a SPA with no other edits, and seems to be a COI into the bargain. Article entirely sourced from primary sources, and the "trilogy" upon which the author's putative fame rests was, according to Amazon, self-published, and lacks so much as a sales rank. Thirteen years is far more than long enough for this self-promotional debris to be festering on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 22:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too few citations and does not meet WP:AUTHOR. MartinWilder (talk) 22:54, 18 February 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!} 23:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Limecube[edit]

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

non-notable software company, no independent coverage. nothing in the way of meaningful substance. CUPIDICAE💕 14:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero hits in Google or Newspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any IRS. The couple of refs in the article I checked were just press releases by the subject. Totally fails GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lack of independent and reliable references. Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. 2 passing mentions in gnews. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage and doesnt meet notability. Zeddedm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 24 February 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!} 23:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldo Awudu[edit]

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

Article makes no claim to ever playing in a WP:FPL or a senior national team. In addition to this, the 3 sources cited are passing mentions in lengthy player lists which do not provide the necessary depth for a WP:GNG pass. I searched Awudu Ronaldo and Ronaldo Awudu through Google News with no results. In DDG, I had nothing for Ronaldo Awudu and very little for Awudu Ronaldo. The final search had a few passing mentions in match reports and stats websites but nothing more. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 19 February 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!} 23:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hilal F.C.–Esteghlal F.C. rivalry[edit]

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

Not notable. Deleted many times on the Persian Wikipedia. Lyrische (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lyrische (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lyrische (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lyrische (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lyrische (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lyrische (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the deletion discussions on fa wiki. It may also have been removed from English Wikipedia before. Lyrische (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now i watched it, the arguments were weak. Intolerance to clubs may be the reason (Esteghlal/Perspolis). Do you withdraw the deletion request? 51.36.0.91 (talk)

Watch how he removes respected and reliable sources and uses the same sources in his articles on the Persepolis players. There is an expert person who reviewed the article and did not ask for deletion. 51.36.0.91 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing in the article to indicate a rivalry, this is just a collection of stats and we have WP:NOSTATS for a reason. Govvy (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Cartainly quite notable. 51.36.34.241 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC) — 51.36.34.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence in the article that any of the assertions that make this a rivalry are true. No evidence these are the proudest teams (whatever that means) in their countries or that this is a noted rivalry or that the nicknames of "classico" have been applied to these games by anyone other than the article writer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry Classic and Proud, all mentioned in multiple reliable sources in three languages. 51.36.0.91 (talk)

Delete clearly doesn't meet any notability guidelines. Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that it is a notable rivalry no evidence that the name Asian El Clasico is even real: only partial matches come up in a search other than wikipedia itself. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment only keep vote is from an IP that is possibly the creator evading their block see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AaliJenab Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 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!} 23:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masato Ishiwa[edit]

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

Can't find coverage in Google or Google News. JP article cites team press releases and 1 RS to describe what foot he uses (right). Played 10 games on the Japanese third league 7 years ago, so technically passes WP:NFOOTY but that is a presumption of notability and it's been long enough to where I think notability should be proven and not just presumed, especially with how short his career was. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this but it won't be enough for WP:GNG. Many database sites (including Playmaker Stats) confirm the appearances but there's little else to build an actual biography article from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 20 February 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!} 23:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janela Lelis[edit]

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

As per NOTNEWS, no sustained coverage on the subject who is notable for a single act of saving a Philippine flag during a typhoon who was likely just highlighted by some national media outlets to give some silver lining during a time of tragedy. Fails WP:GNG. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Nothing in the way of sustained coverage beyond the one incident and event that's small. Could be a subsection in the history of the flag of the Philippines or something similar. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing interesting or special. Fails WP:BIO. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability issues. --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article illustrates all the problems with creating articles on non-notable minors who do one thing that gets a little attention. Lelis is not a "young Filipino girl" as the article states. She is either 22 or 23, a "young girl" prbably should be under 12, but clearly we should not be using the term for a woman age 21 or more, even if maybe we could justify it in a few cases up to age 18.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Nahar[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NCRICKET. -Michri michri (talk) 11:10, 18 February 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 February 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep before he made his first-class debut yesterday, he had already played in 20+ matches. And within five seconds I found this and this to pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lugnuts. Fade258 (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although he currently fails the updated cricket guidelines, a simple search has brought about coverage that would suggest a GNG pass. I'd imagine there'd be more in a more extensive search. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ^ comments from others above. The probability of sources existing suggests the article should be developed rather than deleted. Perhaps it needs someone based in India or with a better understanding of Indian sources to do so? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep. Meets GNG and has made more than enough appearances. StickyWicket (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vishant More[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NCRICKET.--Michri michri (talk) 11:13, 18 February 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 February 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in 30+ matches across all three formats, and a quick search finds this and this for starters. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lugnuts. Fade258 (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Does fail the updated guidelines, but there is some coverage on him as a player. I'm not sure the second source Lugnuts provides would be GNG coverage but the other is, and I'd imagine there'd be more in a more extensive search. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy keep this, 30+ appearances across all formats, including a first-class century. StickyWicket (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ^ comments from others above. The probability of sources existing suggests the article should be developed rather than deleted. Perhaps it needs someone based in India or with a better understanding of Indian sources to do so? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:31, 19 February 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!} 23:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative air force enlisted ranks of the Francophonie[edit]

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

Unclear why a comparison of military ranks based on membership of a language-based organisation (without this being a military organisation or even being indicative of French being a major language in the country) would be a good topic for a list, and not just a random grouping of two unrelated characteristics.

There are many other similar articles created over the last few days; I have now only nominated these for the Francophonie, but if deleted then probably other AfDs for the Anglophone and Hispanic countries are needed as well (and any others that might exist on the same basis).

Also nominated are:

Comparative air force officer ranks of the Francophonie
Comparative navy enlisted ranks of the Francophonie
Comparative navy officer ranks of the Francophonie
Comparative army enlisted ranks of the Francophonie
Comparative army officer ranks of the Francophonie Fram (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see the value of the comparative charts by language, as military organisations in Angophone countries mostly follow the British (or sometimes American, although these obviously have similarities) model, those in Francophone countries mostly follow the French model, etc, and it's useful to see the variations, but I'm not so sure about this one, which is a bit of an odd mixture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m pretty baffled about the purpose, value and appropriateness of these articles, largely because they look like they have a high degree of WP:SYNTH. This one is particularly odd as it lists under “la Francophonie” Albania, Bulgaria and Armenia. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Albania has been a member of the OIF since 1999. This is not the same as "Anglophone", nor "Francophone". The OIF is an actual international organization by this name, with permanent observer status at the UN General Assembly. https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Ouagadougou_9.pdf It has no apparent military rôle, however. Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No further comment needed. Super Ψ Dro 21:17, 18 February 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!} 23:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Jones (mixed martial artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find any coverage outside sports databases. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He meets WP:NMMA with four top tier appearances for Bellator. However, he lost all of them. In addition, Sherdog shows he won 9 and lost 14 pro fights and fightmatrix lists his highest ever rating at #158. Most importantly, I found no significant independent coverage of him. The only things I can find is listings in databases and some routine reporting of results. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 20 February 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. The only agreement here is that this article needs a great deal of work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Kingdom Parade[edit]

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

plain advertising The Banner talk 09:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete half the sources are from disney themselves and could be untruthful and one is a random fan page, also page is just longer then a stub and lacks sources, the page itself has multiple issues that need to be resolved if the author wants to keep the page up, Im really bad at this (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several hits in GBooks, most are travel books. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason why books in the genre of travel can't establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not shocked to find that this is in books, and easily improvable with only a little research. Disney is fairly well documented, after all. Amusingly, not only does Kokai & Robson 2019, p. 3–4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKokaiRobson2019 (help) document the parade route and what happens, but both it and Veness 2020, p. 88–89 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVeness2020 (help) document a widely-publicized fire that this article doesn't have and apparently has not ever had in its contentious we-don't-read-books history. The latter can almost certainly verify much of the content that has been repeatedly inserted and removed for being unverfiable over the past decade, too, because it has a history of the various parades. Pages 88–89 are part of a "Magic Kingdom timeline" section from page 72 onwards. Yes, Springer Nature and Simon and Schuster are not vanity presses, and Kokai and Robson are professors.
And if you are worried about the correctness of the start and end date information about the Dumbo's Circus Parade that was sourced to a WWW site, you could always try an encyclopaedia instead. (Smith 1998, p. 174)
- Kokai, Jennifer A.; Robson, Tom (2019). "You're in the parade: Disney as immersive theatre and the tourist as actor". Performance and the Disney Theme Park Experience: The Tourist as Actor. Springer Nature. ISBN 9783030293222.
- Veness, Susan (2020). The Hidden Magic of Walt Disney World, 3rd Edition: Over 600 Secrets of the Magic Kingdom, EPCOT, Disney's Hollywood Studios, and Disney's Animal Kingdom. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781507212561.
- Smith, Dave (1998). "Dumbo's Circus Parade". Disney A to Z: The Updated Official Encyclopedia (2nd ed.). Hyperion. ISBN 9780786863914.
Uncle G (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Then act wild and improve the article. The Banner talk 19:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Potential for improvement using book sources shared above. I suspect there may also be newspaper sources available at newspapers.com, but am unable to check right now. AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. NemesisAT (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Magic Kingdom or Keep – The topic has received some coverage and would be well-suited for now to be included in the Magic Kingdom article. If expansion down the road warrants its own article, an editor can do the work to change it back and expand with sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another point to mention... The parade is now called the "Festival of Fantasy Parade" and appears in numerous, secondary sources including The Orlando Sentinel, InPark Magazine, Spectrum News 13, and Capital Gazette. There are also other nationally-recognized, reliable theme park blogs that cover it as well, and those articles number in the dozens. While I'm sure someone could eventually expand this as a standalone article with appropriate sourcing, merging a few lines of coverage in the Magic Kingdom article and changing this to a redirect would suffice for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Uncle G and GoneIn60 along with many hits on Gbooks. The article needs improvement for sure, but the sources provided establish notability per GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes Uncle G provided sources indicating passing GNG. The rationale needs to be more detailed to back up the "plain advertising" claim. AfD is not clean-up.l Oakshade (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the sources, but this article needs help. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:43, 22 February 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!} 23:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Harrison (broker)[edit]

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

promotional article for real estate broker; no evidence that heis earlie computer science career was notable either. DGG ( talk ) 11:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ugh. Total puffery and a coatrack for the whole family (the computer science thing, for instance, is actually the subject's father), fails WP:BIO. Just Some Guy. Ravenswing 13:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 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!} 23:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jnaneshwari Peeth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRELORG. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 10:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 10:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article about a minor subgroup. Agree with the nom that WP:NRELORG is not met here. Lack of coverage. Venkat TL (talk) 19:26, 19 February 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!} 23:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sacchidananda Jnaneshwar Bharati[edit]

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

Not a popular personality. Fails GNG. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 10:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 10:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a cult leader. Lack of coverage in reliable media. Fails WP:ANYBIO Venkat TL (talk) 19:21, 19 February 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. Nomination withdrawn Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanai Konam Ethanai Parvai[edit]

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

Largely unsourced article about an unreleased film. Also, Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A pre Internet era film and its difficult to find good references, but still editor DareshMohan have updated some valid references. Rajeshbieee (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Nice work by DareshMohan and Rajeshbieee. But remember that Wiki is not a database, and if I can't find sources for the other myriad articles created, I will have no option but to... you know. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:46, 23 February 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!} 21:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conor McMenamin[edit]

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

Hasn't played in a fully-pro league (fails WP:NFOOTY). No significant coverage of the subject (fails WP:GNG). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are several articles about him, whether or not they consist of significant coverage is debateable: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Michig (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are interviews, so WP:PRIMARY. Also, a most (if not all) talk about transfers and/or specific matches, not really about the player himself. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the SNG, this guy clearly appears to pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - think there's enough out there to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 12:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG one, two, three. This is a WP:BEFORE failure, can User:Nehme1499 please withdraw this nomination. Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG, Zanoni (talk) 08:57, 25 February 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!} 21:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James John Taylor[edit]

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

Hasn't played in a fully-pro league (fails WP:NFOOTY). No significant coverage of the subject (fails WP:GNG). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails SNG and GNG. If by any chance the article is kept then it needs renaming, as his COMMONNAME clearly isn't "James John Taylor" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think playing a few games in the Conference South justifies an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Appreciate your points, however Bath were and still are a professional club when he played for them, albeit playing in what's still classed as a part pro, part semi-pro league supposedly. However the National League is a professional league and setup. He's been mentioned on the Bristol City - a professional, championship club who're verified, Twitter on numerous occasions.

Please also bare in mind that James is a professional footballer who's signed a three year contract at Bristol City, again a Championship club. I appreciate he hasn't played for them, however there are players who've Wikipedia's that have also never played in a fully professional league either.

The name change is absolutely fine.

Look forward to hearing back. Benpring112 (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there are players who've Wikipedia's that have also never played in a fully professional league either. - then those should be deleted too. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe James will be going on loan to a professional league in the coming weeks, so you can either delete now and i resubmit when ready, or we just leave it and I'll edit when relevant? Benpring112 (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's just supposition and unfortunately per WP:CRYSTALBALL we can't base an article on that. If he does play professionally in the coming weeks/months, the article can be recreated -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft Very puffy piece, it would need a lot better sourcing for me to pass GNG. I am don't mind the article being moved to draft space. Govvy (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and is also promotional, so if he becomes notable in future, a better, NPOV article should be created instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Taylor is Welsh as per BeSoccer and Soccerway Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 22 February 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!} 21:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Onyeka Joseph[edit]

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

Hasn't played in a fully-pro league (fails WP:NFOOTY). Doesn't have significant coverage (fails WP:GNG). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any significant coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 22 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Faber McAlister[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:NPROF as far as I can tell; no books to help pass WP:NAUTHOR either. The things that look like books in this article are actually journal articles - this is one of those WikiEdu assignments, where the students profile a scholar and a few pieces of their work, that can make a person look a lot more notable than they really are. Maintenance tagged for reliance on primary sources since 2017; I cut the long chunk of CV-style material from the end, but then realized she isn't notable in the first place. asilvering (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I support this deletion for all the reasons listed in the maintenance tag. This article reads like PR and I've tried unsuccessfully to find any good sources. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was the editor of Women's Studies in Communication from 2014 until 2017 [16] and therefore meets criteria #8 of WP:PROF (The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area). DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "well-established journal". Xxanthippe (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Isn't it? It's been around for decades. I didn't think that brief EIC stint was enough for NPROF either, but it's not my field, and I don't know if there are any guidelines about how "well-established" is defined. -- asilvering (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I buy the WP:NPROF C8 pass. In addition to the editorial found by DaffodilOcean, she's clearly listed at the top of the board in the ending matter at the same issue [17]. The extensive primary-sourced "Scholarly work" section in the article should probably be removed or stubbified. Weak because an NPROF C8 pass generally includes more evidence of progress towards WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree about editing down the lengthy scholarly work section, but I am not sure what is the best summary of that section. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to remove the three paragraphs on the articles rather than summarize them, as the simplest and fastest way to solve the issue, before I nominated this for AfD. This is actually an unusually good example of this format of WikiEdu article, so they've got a paragraph at the top of that section that explains her work more broadly already. But if someone wants to put more work into it they're welcome to (though I recommend waiting for the end of the AfD in case some pro-delete votes pour in at the end). -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree that some of the text reads like a synopsis, which isn't what is usually done in an academic bio. Kudos to anyone who can take on editing that. I added some more writings because what was there made it look like she only published in the same journal that she edited, which would be a red flag. Women's Studies in Communication (assuming I have reached the correct record) is listed in Worldcat as an ejournal held in 930 libraries. As many libraries do not contribute to WorldCat, and of those that do not all create entries for ejournals (depending on whether they come as in a package, etc.), I would say that this is a major publication. This is also evidenced by the fact that it is a Taylor/Francis publication, a reputable academic journal publisher. Lamona (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Dr. McAlister clearly passes WP:NPROF C8. Additionally, her h-index score is a 5, verified both via Scopus and Web of Science. I'd rate this as good enough to meet C1 as well at this point in her career, given that the average social scientist h-index scores tend to be at 5 or lower across diverse fields, per this London School of Economics piece. (I'd place her field of expertise as straddling social sciences and humanities, but can't find averages for the latter.) The "senior lecturer" h-index score average from that LSE article (a roughly-equivalent rank to Dr. McAlister's "associate professor" in the U.S.) is 2.29, so she's more than doubled that average. --Pinchme123 (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An h-index of 5 is not remotely enough to pass WP:Prof. Over 15 is expected from precedent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe If the average social scientist h-index score is 5 or lower I don't think a 5 is enough for WP:NPROF either, but "over 15 is expected from precedent" doesn't make any sense, since h-index is so discipline dependent. Do you mean over 15 specifically in McAlister's discipline? Can you point to a specific precedent here? -- asilvering (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I don't have the resources to debate, you but a glance through academic AfDs for he past decade shows that around 1000 citations and and h-index of 15 are expected for a marginal pass of WP:Prof; more in a fashionable field like this. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe H-index scores widely vary due to discipline. Hence why I provided a source to explain this and note why a 5 for an associate professor is much higher than average in her field, and average for all in all similar fields regardless of career stage. I stand by my vote that a 5 for a feminist scholar and rhetorician is plenty to meet WP:NPROF C1, especially one who also sails by C8 (further evidence of her impact). Not to mention, I have no idea what could be meant by hers being a "fashionable field." --Pinchme123 (talk) 08:49, 24 February 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!} 21:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naia Butler-Craig[edit]

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

Although Butler-Craig certainly has a prestigious career forthcoming, at its current status this page likely violates WP:ACADEMIC. The closest justification for Notability is the cited Forbes 30 for 30 award, which would fall under Criteria 2, but I am not sure we can consider a Forbes 30 for 30 award in the same tier (or even a tier below that) of academic awards and honors as a Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc. This article fails all other Criteria (1, 3-8) in WP:ACADEMIC. At it's current state I support its deletion. Paulstar57 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 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 February 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With only 5 citations in GS fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. She does not meet WP:PROF. I think she should be evaluated as a science communicator and advocate. To that end I added a few citations to the page where she is quoted in the media. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes are not not enough for notabilty. In-depth sources are needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I should have indicated that more was to come, and I have added some more details on the page. NowThis News shares a video highlighting her work, she has spoken with NPR about space propulsion, in addition to the recognition by Forbes, Popular Mechanic, and the Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing from comment --> keep based on my opinion that she meets WP:GNG. As I already noted, she does not meet WP:PROF. Her repeated coverage by multiple, independent sources is evidence of WP:BASIC. She appears regularly in the media talking about the lack of diversity in space science, most notably in NowThis News^[1] and in a podcast with scientist from NASA and Georgia Tech.^[2] She has also been on NPR.^[3] These three citations go beyond trivial mentions of her name, though the page includes other examples of less substantial mentions of her work. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Seen: This Aerospace Engineer Is Pushing for More Diversity in the STEM Industry". NowThis News. August 3, 2021. Retrieved 2022-02-12.
^ All Things Aviation & Aerospace (January 3, 2022). "Remember when the Perseverance Mars Rover first landed on Mars? Hear what the guys in the trenches were saying just before it touched". audible.com (Podcast). Event occurs at 00:24:50.
^ "Happy Science Fiction Week, Earthlings! : Short Wave". NPR.org. December 20, 2021. Retrieved 2022-02-12.

Comment. I agree with DaffodilOcean. WP:GNG is probably the relavent criteria, not WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 30 under 30 is junk and non-RS. It is not an award. All the x of y clickbait profile/muck you see, are all non-RS. They are a form of advertising. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 04:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the references in this article don't really establish a passing WP:GNG criteria. Most of them are just interviews with Butler-Craig which is fairly common in science. This would set a bad precedence of any professor or academic who does media interviews (and there are a lot!) having established Notability. I also agree with above, Forbes 30 for 30 is not seen as a credible award or honor in the science domain as an overwhelming majority in this field simply do not apply. Also, not that this is necessarily the case, but this article in its current state feels very autobiographical. --Paulstar57 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused here. Paulstar57 is a new account with the only edits being to nominate this page for deletion. I don't think you then get to vote on it, or least that is my interpretation of this statement found in the guide to deletion: "If you are the nominator of an article for deletion, your desire to delete it is assumed (unless you specify that you are neutral, and nominating for other reasons). Because of this, you do not get to !vote (that is, for the second time) in your own AfD.". DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not count as two votes, only one, but the nominator is allowed to comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry about that, edited my comment to reflect this.--Paulstar57 (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it "feel very autobiographical"? In any case, WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reading through the material this should be a GNG issue and imho the subject does meet that notability guideline, if basically. So I agree with DaffodilOcean and Kj cheetham. (Subject seems to be a worthy competitor in her field with further achievement forthcoming. Might even see her on a trip to Mars soon.) This one's a keeper. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 22:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the community agrees that this article genuinely passes GNG, then fine. I just personally thought the benchmark was much higher for GNG than this. If this is what it takes to have notability for science communication then there are hundreds if not thousands of academics that have a similar list (just using the Forbes 30 for 30 honor means that there are 30 of these scientists a year, for over a decade now). I am relatively new to all of this, but with regards to your "further achievement forthcoming" comment, aren't there the rules against crystal predictions of the future. We need to build articles on the reality of the present not on predictions of the future.--Paulstar57 (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree this isn't WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Paulstar57: agree with your CRYSTAL, so I've placed it in parens, because it wasn't meant to be a part of my reason to keep this article. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 13:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 30 under 30 isn't sufficient, but the other coverage just about covers WP:GNG I think. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know why folks are leaning on the 30 under 30 (which does appear in over 1600 wp articles, so it is worth mentioning). She has been given a NASA research fellowship, was honored by the National Society of Black Engineers (and don't tell that doesn't count because it's only black engineers]], the Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals, Popular Mechanics, et al. All of these honors add up. True, she has only a few publications and not many cites but she's still a student!. You ask me, we might as well have this article here because it's only going to grow. Lamona (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is clearly enough overall coverage to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 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!} 21:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Azad University, Mahshahr Branch[edit]

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

From what I can tell the article has been unreferenced since it's creation in 2009 and the thing reads like a glorified course catalog, not an encyclopedic article. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would help things either. So the article fails both GNG and NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I believe the article meets WP:GNG. Although I agree that it seems like a glorified course catalog and article has no references. GoldMiner24 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 18 February 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 per WP:G4 and WP:G5. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bikroo Kanpur Gangster[edit]

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

fails WP:NFILM. Third attempt in creating this in mainspace. see Draft:Bikroo Kanpur Gangster & Draft:Bikroo Kanpur Gangster (2) --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NFF for an unreleased film. Trailer announcements do not contribute to notability. The rest are WP:SYNDICATED news sources largely containing quotes by the director. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 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!} 21:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great Big Island[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation in 2008. No significant coverage on google, newspapers.com, etc. Fails WP:CORP Alyo (chat·edits) 07:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Alyo (chat·edits) 07:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alyo (chat·edits) 07:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Alyo (chat·edits) 07:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did a deeper search through local newspapers on NewsBank (including The Olympian) and only found one result: this 2004 piece on an employee that mentions the business model in passing. Sounder Bruce 07:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORP is not the relevant yardstick for labels; WP:MUSIC is the better controlling guideline. However, this is barely a label in the usual sense of the word, and more a contract-based live-recording distributor; it appears to be operating almost entirely as a releaser of quasi-official CD-R concert recordings. So as a label, it doesn't pass muster, and I'm not surprised there doesn't seem to be enough RS coverage to meet GNG. Chubbles (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, couldn't find any coverage in independent sources significantly. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:26, 19 February 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ganesha811 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Task & Purpose[edit]

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

Military news website. Does not appear to readily pass WP:GNG - appears to have only garnered mainstream coverage when the editor resigned in 2018 (WP:ONEEVENT), but otherwise all mentions in reliable sources are passing/trivial, not in-depth. It's a marginal case, but I lean delete and would like to see if others agree. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a notable publication based on the number of other notable publications that repost or cite their articles as a source such as , People, Military.com, The Hill, Military Times, CNBC, and Politico. This should be enough to pass WP:WEBCRIT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've fleshed it out a bit with feature coverage like [18] and [19]. Now readily passes WP:GNG (there is even more reporting but like with any source that is indexed by Google as news finding news reports *about* them and not *from* them using the news search function is an immense challenge). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources from reputed and credible websites and news outlets. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 12:47, 19 February 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!} 03:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Down Holly[edit]

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

Subject appears to lack evidence of notability per secondary sourcing (no results from a brief search) Headphase (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article was created in 2007, when it was much easier to get a band article into Wikipedia with basic proof that they existed. That is not the case any more, and they do not qualify under modern WP notability rules. They can only be found in a few retail listings and social media posts by local fans reminiscing, and even those are rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:44, 22 February 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!} 03:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HQME[edit]

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

No real indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Keep - I de-orphaned, added stub notice, added talk page. Perhaps bring more attention to article. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nearly all of the coverage I'm seeing is from 2011, and nearly all of it is industry promotion. Not seeing enough to justify notability, and the current material is both promotional and links only to press releases. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:14, 22 February 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!} 03:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merinews[edit]

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

Promotional stuff, nothing notable, and in-depth reliable resources. Daringsmith (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 18 February 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!} 03:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IQsoft[edit]

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

The article reads like it could potentially appear on the company's website, is short and stubby, and the sole reference provided doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. The redirect at Terramove should be deleted as well as it just redirects to the IQsoft article. Paula Bradley (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero significant coverage (and also surface-level coverage) in independent, reliable sources! Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Only passing mentions in gnews. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 20 February 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. Consensus is sourcing isn't sufficient. Not inclined to let it molder in draft for six months, but if someone wants to actively work on it, just let me know. Star Mississippi 03:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grants of Australia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Sources 1/2 and 3 fail WP:PRODUCTREV, Sources 4 and 6 fail WP:ORGIND. Source 5 is Paywalled and cannot be assessed but probably also fails ORIGND based on the title of the article. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I think that this page should be moved to draft (see Wikipedia:Drafts) to allow it to be worked on and more information to be added to the page. For example fluoride free toothpaste, etc. With the extra content the references can be unclumped. The page can be reassessed when it is ready to move back to mainspace. As an aside source 5 is actually freely accessible in Australia so I suspect geolocking. Gusfriend (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, I live in the United States and was able to access it. There was no paywall either. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Coverage seems to just routine rather than indepth. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 24 February 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 00:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Radon Association[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NORG and WP:GNG, as the only sources I could find from a search were primary ones. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The only thing that I can find is a press release, that is dated a few hours from when this article was created. I suspect that not to be a coincidence. Uncle G (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also only find the press release. No hits in GScholar, I don't think the organization is terribly important. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 18 February 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 WITHDRAW. This is such a borderline case, I hated bringing it here but felt obligated. A source or two has popped up and it seems obvious there is a very week case for it to be kept, but that's ok. Rather than drag it out, I will withdraw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Pikal[edit]

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

The guy sounds like a hoot, but that isn't the criteria. The only real notable thing is being inducted into the Minnesota Music Hall of Fame, and I'm not convinced that is significant enough, by itself, to pass the criteria for inclusion. Most of the sources are broke, and most probably don't pass WP:RS only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of the weakest variety. There was a few local obits after he passed. Could just see this edging over into GNG but interested to see what others think. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other obituaries cited are either more about the memorial arrangements than the person's life and works, or credit other cited obituaries for the information. The obituary by Lentz is neither, and is a fairly solid starter source. But for a biography I'd definitely need more than just that. One core source like that and a fair number of little sources to support, fill in, or even correct, details would be good enough. Looking around I don't find much in the way of detail sources. But there is another obituary not cited: http://glencoenews.com/sites/default/files/A-Section%203-8.pdf I'd like to have independent sources that aren't contemporary with the obituaries. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem leaving this open longer if people think they can find the sources. Again, the guy sounds like he was the life of the party and a very interesting (and talented) character, but I couldn't find enough. I didn't look at the obit, but if you say it passes WP:RS, I will take your word for it. If we can find one more source that is at least *some* coverage, and reliable, I'll gladly withdraw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is just enough coverage to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 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!} 03:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Doubles[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - subject lacks significant coverage in sources independent of the subject Amigao (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Promotional article by a UPE/COI editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass GNG. Possibly speedy delete per WP:G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:46, 18 February 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 Liturgical books of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Common Worship of 1946[edit]

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

This unsourced article is already covered by the more expansive article Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).Gusfriend (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right now this is both unsourced and redundant, so it should be deleted. Doesn't need a merge; content already in the appropriate destination article. I don't think this needs a redirect, since what links here is other similar unsourced articles up for AfD/merge. -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more input would help to determine whether the content merits merging
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it is already covered in Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). As far as merging it instead, I'm against it because the content isn't referenced and there's zero point in merging un-referenced material that will likely just be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)#Book of Common Worship (1906, 1932, and 1946) as an ATD as it is covered there and as noted above by Adamant1 the article itself does not warrant a merge due to the information being unsourced. I see the argument above against a redirect due to incoming links, but this is also a feasible search term and there seems to be no reason to have this not be a redirect as per WP:CHEAP. TartarTorte 15:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect to section of nom's article dealing with this revision. We do not need to have a RS for the fact that it existed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 19 February 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Generalrelative (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Race Life of the Aryan Peoples[edit]

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

The subject of this article, a 1907 book, does not seem to be notable per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. None of the current citations are secondary sources discussing the book, and a search on Google Scholar yielded none. A search on Jstor yielded a few passing mentions ([20], [21], [22] and [23]) but nothing like the substantial coverage required for notability. Much of the current article appears to be a content fork for discussion of the historical race concept "Aryan race". And about a third is just a long quote from the book. Our article about the author, Joseph Widney, is decent enough, but only one sentence is written about this book there. I would suggest that anything usable here be merged into that article. The only reason I haven't WP:BOLDly performed the merge is that this article (somewhat surprisingly) has a relatively high viewership, so I'd like to get a solid consensus from the community on the matter. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I see how this is going and do not want to waste the community's time. Thanks to those who have participated. Generalrelative (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book was the subject of critical reviews in The Arena (ProQuest 124468843), The Athenaeum (ProQuest 8904058), The Spectator (ProQuest 1295475818), The Academy (ProQuest 1298670327), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (doi:10.1177/000271620803100122), and more. This meets WP:NBOOK #1 and WP:GNG. DanCherek (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question: Is there really no exception when the reviews are all well over 100 years old? It seems very odd to me that these reviews from 1907-1908 would be seen as establishing notability. Generalrelative (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTEMP is the relevant guideline. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, AleatoryPonderings. If that's the determination then I'll of course accept it. But I do wonder if 114-year-old book reviews are really what the community had in mind when composing that guideline. 04:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
My interpretation of the guidelines is that the amount of contemporary coverage that this book received indicates that it can and should have an encyclopedic article. If I was actually rewriting the article (which I unfortunately don't have the time to do, though I hope these sources are helpful to whomever wants to take up the task), I would incorporate more recent sources – which do exist – in addition to the ones above. I'm not particularly surprised that newer sources seem to be less in-depth than the contemporary ones. There wouldn't really be a reason for literary journals to publish a full-length review of a 100+ year old book as if it was just published; instead, it makes sense that discussion of the book is interwoven with other analyses. DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your perspective, DanCherek. I guess we'll see what others have to say, and if the result is "keep" I'll try to make some of those improvements when I have time. Generalrelative (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, mulitple reviews as listed by DanCherek above. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I got most of the content fork? What a mess. As far as the book reviews, I'd venture a guess, though I don't have any statistical data to check my hunch, that book reviews are an even stronger indicator of notability the further back in time you go. Fewer reviewing journals, and also probably selection bias of our current databases. -- asilvering (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the independent reviews establish notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 18 February 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 reasonable arguments on both sides here. Some source material has been provided; it appears to be neither strong enough to render the "delete" arguments inconsequential, nor poor enough to obviate the "keep"s. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Biss[edit]

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

While there is some coverage of this individual, this is almost all from a single source. This could be considered a case of WP:BIO1E, but does not meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. First, the nominator for deletion blanked the article altogether with the edit summary redirect to only incident which he is notorious for, instead redirecting it to Al Columbia, who is patently not related to the article nor to Pawłokoma. I hope the nominator recognises that error.

Referring to the article itself, Biss played a central role in the Pawłokoma massacre, which itself is notable (but which article is a stub). Per WP:BLP1E, the article should be deleted if a person is known for one event, is otherwise WP:LOWPROFILE and his role in the event was minor or tangential. The thing is, the point 3 is not satisfied - he was central to the event.

The problem here is not that Biss only has one source that describes him but that there are few people who can read both Polish and Ukrainian, have access to the books and want to expand it. The sources are in fact rather plentiful [24], just no one bothered to use them yet. The article needs substantial work, but it clearly belongs here, at least for so long as the Pawłokoma article itself is not expanded. If it had been, we could have probably talked about merging, but given the dismal state of the Pawłokoma massacre article (which should be larger), the article should stay. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Szmendewrowiecki's sources list (The sources are in fact rather plentiful... [25]) is from… 1800s before Biss was even born and links to entirely different people. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources as they appear in the link and that contain something more than simply a mention of the name:

Stanisław Kryciński, Przemyśl i Pogórze Przemyskie (2007)
Wiesław Józef Wiąk, Struktura organizacyjna Armii Krajowej 1939-1944 (2003)
Grzegorz Rąkowski, Ziemia lwowska (2005) - cited in the article
Grzegorz Mazur, Konspiracja lwowska, 1939-1945: słownik biograficzny (1997)
Dariusz Iwaneczko, Zbigniew Nawrocki (eds.), Rok pierwszy: powstanie i działalność aparatu bezpieczeństwa publicznego na Rzeszowszczyźnie (2005)
Konspiracja i opór społeczny w Polsce 1944-1956: słownik biograficzny, vol. 1 and 3 (2002)
Bogdan Kobuszewski, Piotr Matusak, Tadeusz Rawski (eds.) Polski Ruch Oporu 1939-1945 (1988)

The list may go on, and I've only mentioned the Polish-language sources. Ukrainian-language sources have not even been considered in this list despite my writing in Ukrainian. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link [26] you posted does not show any of the above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They start with this[27] then this [28] and so on. Anyone can check. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google in Canada doesn't work the same way as it does in Poland, or even across users, which I've already seen elsewhere in discussions (Google should know better - Ukrainian Canadians are quite plentiful in Prairie provinces, and among these some speak Ukrainian; though again I can't rule out Google serving different content based on the province you live in). Besides, it's fairly strange that a query in Ukrainian returns you a false positive publication in Dutch (it finds repeated instances of "biss."). But anyway, you've got the titles above, you can search among these. They have each talk a paragraph or two about him, out of which we can make a small but a meaningful entry. As has been said, Ukrainian sources were not considered but that's because Google serves me Polish entries for Ukrainian queries. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google in Canada doesn't work the same way as it does in Poland.. - no, the search results for this particular entry are exactly the same in Poland and in Canada. Exactly the same. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No - your search you show now (in the attached screen shot) is in books section (książki - in Polish), that’s why is different. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plus "Przemysl i Pogórze Przemyskie: przewodnik

..przewodnika stanowi Słownik miejscowości zawierający szczegółowe informacje krajoznawcze o wszystkich miejscowościach na omawianym terenie, w tym także nieistniejących. English - the sightseeing guide is a locality dictionary containing detailed sightseeing information about all the villages in the area in question, including non-existent ones

The sightseeing guide is not a RS for this topic area. Stanisław Kryciński is not a historian (he is an engineer[29])- GizzyCatBella🍁 21:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may note that the link at the top of the screenshot is exactly the same as the link I've offered at the very beginning. You may also want to see here for the values of tbm search parameter.

Now, you've cited one book which arguably isn't RS, but you've got six others. Anything about them? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to reference? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not what we are trying to reference, but that the sources are there. People simply didn't bother to reach them. Since multiple independent and reliable sources talk about him (and I've only taken Polish-language books), it squarely meets WP:GNG. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are not. Your source number 3 - Grzegorz Rąkowski, Ziemia lwowska (2005) is another tour guide.

But lets focus on your source number 2 for now - Wiesław Józef Wiąk, Struktura organizacyjna Armii Krajowej 1939-1944 (2003) - Is this source about Józef Biss? GizzyCatBella🍁 06:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It doesn't have to be about him, it needs to have WP:SIGCOV content about him. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Biss is notable not only for his genocidal killings of Ukrainian civilians, but also for his extensive banditry after the war. Or, as patriotic Poles call it, anti-communist activities via armed robbery. This was a notorious criminal, a mass murderer, who is discussed extensively in Polish and Ukranian sources.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC) - globally banned strike[reply]

User:Erin Vaxx please strike your ethnically based attack and insults. Volunteer Marek 17:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While we are crippled by the poor digitization of Polish sources, and the fact that what is digitized on Google Books is snippet view, I see the following:

[30]: a footnote biography of at least several sentences length
[31] and indeterminate length and style biography that also appears to be at least several sentences long

While this is not a lot, it meets my interpretation of the minimum needed for GNG (at least two independent, reliable sources, which contain WP:SIGCOV-passing content about the subject). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Pawłokoma massacre - lacking acceptable sources (refer to ArbCom restrictions [32]) See talk page for more - [33] This source[34] is the only one meeting sourcing expectations I believe - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella What do you think about the sources I found above? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only one that’s good by Janusz Kurtyka [35]. GizzyCatBella🍁 19:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and this one [36] about the massacre. That’s why I believe the merger is fine too. GizzyCatBella🍁 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll dissent. If someone gets two biographies in reliable books, short but still biographies, I think we can have a dedicated article about them. I think that's enough for WP:NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per discussion on my Talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing/relisting admin comment: Szmenderowiecki came to my Talk and we had a conversation about my close. While I stand by my merger close, more discussion is never a bad thing so I have relisted this for further input. Thanks all. Star Mississippi 20:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not optimistic that further input is forthcoming, but willing to give it another try for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin comment @Szmenderowiecki and Piotrus: I'm not going to be the one to close this given I did the first time, but I don't think we're going to get any more input. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 03:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi Heh. Just leave it to another admin to close, what will happen will happen and it will be good to have another set of eyes... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, @WexfordUK just asked at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mario_Cerrito_(2nd_nomination) whether it was the longest running AfD. I knew it had company but forgot about this one being a week longer. Curious to see how it closes. Star Mississippi 14:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi I did! LOL. WexfordUK (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per arguments above. Volunteer Marek 09:13, 26 February 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 Draftify per the "too soon" consensus. The article will be found momentarily at Draft:Shivansh Kotia. Star Mississippi 03:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shivansh Kotia[edit]

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

Very small roles done. They are claiming that there is one major role but it doesn’t look like. It’s a small role in a famous serial. Not notable for Wikipedia platform. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. I agree with the nominator that Kotia's roles – mostly just minor appearances – aren't significant to qualify under WP:NACTOR #1. He did win the Indian Telly Award for Best Child Artiste - Male, but I don't think that can be considered a "well-known and significant award" for purposes of WP:ANYBIO #1. The question of whether Kotia meets the GNG is a closer call, but most of the sourcing available seems to be the sort of tabloid-style news coverage of questionable reliability that WP:NOTNEWS counsels us against using. My bottom-line conclusion is that Kotia seems to be on a promising path, but at the moment it's a bit too soon for him to be deemed notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incubation Request/Suggestion - Kindly incubate the article and move it to Wikipedia:Drafts instead of deletion until it meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 12:13, 23 February 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.

MaraJoara[edit]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MosesNotProphet (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old disambiguation page, between Marajoara Culture and MaraJoara brand, as the page for the brand has been deleted in 2017, there doesn't seem to be a need to maintain the disambiguation page anymore.

While Marajó Island has been added as a new link, it seems unnecessary to maintain a disambiguation page between a place and the people who once lived in that place, as both articles are directly related and mention each other. MosesNotProphet (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MosesNotProphet (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a few more topics. The title should be changed to lower-case the "J". Marajoara already exists as a redirect to Marajoara culture which is the WP:PrimaryTopic, so this should be moved to Marajoara (disambiguation). MB 17:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Saw the new topics and added another one, with the move and the new topics I do agree it should be kept. MosesNotProphet (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and standardise spelling in title. I'm not sure about a primary topic: on the Portuguese Wikipedia, the dab page occupies the primary title: pt:Marajoara. – Uanfala (talk) 23:28, 18 February 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Dexter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. I cannot find any reliable coverage in a WP:BEFORE search. GPL93 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any reliable sources, all that comes up when I search the name are their personal website/linkedin/zoominfo/etc. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote per below. I'm convinced enough with sources presented by Eddy. SBKSPP (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an expert on the notability standards for models but she appears to pass it. There are several sources in the article and I was able to find [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these appear to be particularly notability-lending. 1 is an interview with a non-reliable blog that refers to itself as a "DIY" Punk news site; 2 is an interview on the blog section of a website for a company that does hair and makeup for weddings, 3 is also an interview with a non-reliable blog where articles are submitted from freelancers/outside contributors and then published; 4 is a listicle , 5 is a community college student newspaper, and 6 appears to be paid given the sales pitch at the end. GPL93 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the analysis above that shows that none of the presented sources add at all towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Eddy. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing references are not good and are promotional blog posts or empty pages. Looking at the new sources, I agree with GPL93, 1, 2 & 3 are biographical but not very in depth and are blog interviews by fans, 4 is basically a caption on a photo and 5 & 6 are thinly disguised ads for her store and clothing line, not anything biographical. I will say that she seems to be well-known in the small pinup world but I think the best that could be written with these sources is a fan page, not a Wikipedia article.

Given the focus on youth in the modeling world, I don't know if more reliable sources will be forthcoming in the future if the main focus in this article is on her modeling career. If her businesses take off, that could be another story but they don't meet our notability standard at this point in time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 24 February 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] "Seen: This Aerospace Engineer Is Pushing for More Diversity in the STEM Industry". NowThis News. August 3, 2021. Retrieved 2022-02-12.

[2] All Things Aviation & Aerospace (January 3, 2022). "Remember when the Perseverance Mars Rover first landed on Mars? Hear what the guys in the trenches were saying just before it touched". audible.com (Podcast). Event occurs at 00:24:50.

[3] "Happy Science Fiction Week, Earthlings! : Short Wave". NPR.org. December 20, 2021. Retrieved 2022-02-12.

[1]

[2]

[3]