Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 25	March 27 >

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 23:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OziExplorer[edit]

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

I am unable to find any coverage of this software that would merit inclusion. Survived PROD early on, so we're here. Star Mississippi 14:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked multiple search engines and couldn't find any sources. Rlink2 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 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 23:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of this being notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 27 March 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 23:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Eadie[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE. Simple search returned no significant coverage from reliable sources. Justi yaya 14:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 14:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 14:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 14:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Found IMDb, wikis, Prabook, Facebook on Google. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 12 March 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 14:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is remarkably little material about this subject that doesn't involve something saying "...long-time producer Damian Eadie" in writing about the show itself. He doesn't seem to have any type of notability beyond the show. Maybe a mention in the show article would do. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 27 March 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 / my own nomination withdrawn. Thanks @CT55555: on the research. Will move as soon as I close this. Star Mississippi 01:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talaqan Dam[edit]

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

For discussion, as there may be a merger target, but I'm not sure what. SV Wiki has the best, unfortunately dead link, NASA sourcing that might have verified this dam's existence. The photo here of the lake doesn't even convey that it's formed by a dam, whose existence is currently unverifiable. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 14:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs to be improved and there is no cause for article to be deleted. Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA links at svwiki work for me, but I'm not sure what its supposed to prove regarding the dam itself. I would say keep, but maybe remove photo because it is not clear if it is actually the dam Rlink2 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check out https://ijhe.tums.ac.ir/browse.php?a_id=6398&sid=1&slc_lang=en I think it is more commonly spelled slighted differently as Taleqan Dam. CT55555 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Taleqan Dam as it is easy to find lots about it on Google Scholar once you know the more common English spelling. CT55555 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 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 23:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Gold Derby Film Awards[edit]

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

The Gold Derby Awards have consistently failed to meet notability requirements; see AfD discussions for Gold Derby Awards from 2020 and 2021 Gold Derby Music Awards from this year. The article could probably be deleted with a PROD, but I think a discussion to make it clear that these articles are never warranted would be useful, given that the main Gold Derby article has recently seen major work focused on adding these awards. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Gabe114 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the winners are listed on the Gold Derby page already, that's more than enough. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 27 March 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 12:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Webography[edit]

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

This article describes web directories. There are lots of articles about web directories. See Category:Web directories. Nobody calls them webographies. Sean Brunnock (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources in the article do not explicitly define what a Webography is, or even use the term, and I cannot find significant coverage of it as described. There are other sources that use this word to define a completely different concept.[1] SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:05, 21 March 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 23:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads almost like a dictionary definition (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY), and of a term that questionably belongs to be in a dictionary.Jacona (talk) 10:31, 2 April 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 speedied A7 by Bbb23. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Mountain Media (Southern Belle, LLC)[edit]

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

Borderline A7 eligible article on a Non notable organization that fails WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me to mostly user generated sources, needless to say WP:ORGDEPTH is an abysmal failure Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worse than that, the article contains virtually no information. Athel cb (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Argie 15[edit]

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

De-PROD'd, but no improvements made. I was not able to locate significant independent coverage of this dinghy line in reliable sources. An objection on my talk page asserts that the design is notable for having won awards, but if no coverage exists of the winning, then winning confers no notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the only source is the product's info page, then that's not enough for an article. Web search just shows promotional and basic informational content, not enough to establish notability Rlink2 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, not much to indicate this is a well-covered craft. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Jacona (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US Breastfeeding Report Card 2014[edit]

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

Something seems odd to me about having such a list from a seemingly arbitrary year. There is no context for the significance of this list; it seems to be a naked presentation of statistics (no pun intended). BD2412 T 22:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this might be a suitable topic for all years, I don't see how it makes any sense to have it for each individual year. Jacona (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jacona. I also note that the prose part of this article says only, For International Breastfeeding Rates by Country "A Comparison of Breastfeeding Rates by Country", yet this data is all for U.S. states and there are no links to any source which would provide breastfeeding rates in any other country. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I take the For in For International Breastfeeding Rates by Country "A Comparison of Breastfeeding Rates by Country" to mean that if someone created a page called A Comparison of Breastfeeding Rates by Country then this list would provide useful information about the USA. Maybe, but that's not how it works. Athel cb (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's what they meant, then whoever was writing the hypothetical page A Comparison of Breastfeeding Rates by Country would presumably want the overall rate for the USA, not 50 separate state rates -- and the overall rate for the USA doesn't appear on this page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like it should be part of a series but it's disconnected. Not adding value. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete useless orphan list with no indication of significance; Wikipedia is Not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dronebogus (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTIINFO. Ajf773 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weird article and no notability. Gabe114 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Confusing article with non-notability. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTIINFO Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTIINFO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late Alhaji yakubu Sale (LATA) Primary Health Care Center[edit]

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

Unverifiable. Searches such as this and this returned zero useful results. None of the 3 references included in the article mention a Healthcare Centre of this name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Backup File System[edit]

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

Only one "quality" reference; Lifehacker isn't enough to warrant an article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable software. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that it's not notable. While it does have two references (not "one" as stated in the nomination), I tagged this article over five years ago and have since become frustrated by the fact that the subject matter will be impossible to properly source. This is all reverse engineered by hackers, so it will be original research at best, and rely on self-published sources. — voidxor 22:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Would be pointless even to merge, as I am pretty sure that the Wii has been hacked enough that WBFS is no longer necessary to use. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and the other reasons voiced in this discussion (e.g., no way that this will be able to pass GNG currently). DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails GNG and the software in discussion is not notable. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If anything is worth mentioning, it makes sense to be in the parent article. Jacona (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masjidul Ummah Complex, Gombe[edit]

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

The article contains 4 references all of which are general references about Islam and not one of them mentions this specific mosque. Searched in Google, DDG and ProQuest but to no avail. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from a few social media posts, I could find no coverage either. Religious buildings are not automatically notable, and there's no indication that this mosque (which opened just a few days ago) has yet received the significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed for it to meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable refs. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable references --Tow (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources, also the provided sources and references being unreliable. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late Hajiya Dudun Bega Maternal and Child Health Care Bolari[edit]

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

This article has 3 references none of which mention anything about a 'Late Hajiya Dudun Bega Maternal and Child Health Care Bolari'. This search shows that the place probably exists but WP:GNG is extremely doubtful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to parent organisation if it can be identified. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show enough notability. Suonii180 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bolawa Public Health Care Gombe, Gombe State[edit]

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

None of the 3 sources mention this Healthcare Centre. Internet searches of "Bolawa Public Health Care" and "Bomala Primary Health Care" yield zero valid results so this fails WP:V as well as WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since AfD began, article has been WP:REFBOMBed with references that fail to mention Bolawa/Bomala Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primary Health Care Center (PHCC) in Gombe State, Nigeria[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory; see WP:NOTDIR. I am also failing to see significant coverage in WP:RS for this topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Lists, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:MILL as well as general bad quality and WP:ORPHAN status. Dronebogus (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Very little information here, where a category system for facilities with an article can do. gidonb (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Drafting the article for further improvement on the part of the editor would be a lot better than outright deleting it Atibrarian (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Not a directory. Create as category once individual pages exist. Gusfriend (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough information given, and creating it as a category would be better. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a list of named things without an article between them is not a list for Wikipedia, Agree with nom 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even titled correctly. Deb (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom READING BEANS ^{Talk to the Beans?} 11:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY or a phone book. --Kbabej (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, really take your pick. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and as mentioned by Deb, not titled correctly. Jacona (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pantami Primary Health Care Center[edit]

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

Neither of the two sources cited mention a 'Pantami Primary Health Care Center' and this search yielded no detailed coverage in WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists, but I was not able to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources either—only a few list entries and passing mentions. There's no indication that this institution meets the GNG or any relevant SNG, and no alternatives to deletion come to mind. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't have sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 14:04, 2 April 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!} 19:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlin Ivanov[edit]

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

Played 7 minutes of football about a decade ago then spent the rest of his career as a semi-pro/amateur. Google News and DDG are largely coming up with results about the much more notable Pavlin Ivanov (basketball), who should be moved to this location if the article ends up being deleted. I found squad list mentions in places like Sportal but no actual detailed coverage which would allow for a WP:GNG pass, which is the only relevant guideline when the WP:NFOOTBALL pass is so incredibly weak. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significance. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dellete, 7 minutes as a pro and lacking significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is why we need to move up from 1 game notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no, because AFD is clearly working. Giant Snowman 19:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are going to use a rule other than played any amount of time in any game in a huge number of "fully professional" leagues, we should spell out that rule instead of stating a rule in the guidelines we do not actually use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 30 March 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 19:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage, needs more sources and references. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree per nom and the basketballer should replace this footballer. The subject has no WP:SIGCOV to justify an article on the inclusion criteria. GauchoDude (talk) 16:39, 2 April 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!} 19:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get a draft of the article? SavageBWiki (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Shostka[edit]

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

Obvious fake. Not a single source supports the article title - that there was or is a "Battle of Shostka". Iconicos (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting: Article was previously requested for speedy deletion by nominator, Iconicos, which was procedural contested by myself, Elijahandskip.[2] Elijahandskip (talk) 19:11, 26 March 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 March 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current sources do not indicate a battle took place. If any sources are found to indicate a battle took place, please add them to the article, and this will switch to a Keep. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the current references do not indicate that a battle took place. Regards. Mbilalwiki (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not famous battle, but there is proof that there was a battle in Shostka and it is on the Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map that it is under Russian control. SavageBWiki (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SavageBWiki: if you have WP:RS that indicate that a battle happened at Shostka, please list it here. The current references do not seem to support this. - Ljleppan (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map is based on bad info. There is clear evidence that the city is under Ukrainian control. And I have seen no evidence that the Russians hold it, appart from the maps, which are apparently not based on any available information.

https://www.newsweek.com/meet-abandoned-cats-living-bomb-shelter-ukraine-1690849 Wolf359Locutus (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources confirming, not even in the article itself, that a battle actually took place. EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was going to merge it anyways. Almost no sources exist, and certainly none from non-involved entities. Curbon7 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Curbon7 Yes, merge the few sentences and sources that are available to Northeastern Ukraine offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. If it even happened it is WP:TOOSOON. Mztourist (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there was never a battle of Shostka, at least not the kind described in this article. May also fail WP:OR. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New sources suggest that there had been fighting at the Shostka outskirts. Together with the aerial attacks one could see this as a "battle of Shostka", and the article seems significantly improved now. Though there is some discussion on the article's talk page about who is actually in control of the city, I would revoke the AfD, but I don't know if this is possible according to enwiki procedures, so thank you for helping me with this.--Iconicos (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there are sources confirming an actual battle for the town took place, regardless of our personal views of the situation, everything else is considered unsourced original research per Wikipedia guidelines. One skirmish in a village outside the town doesn't equal to a "Battle of Shostkha", unless verifiable by reliable sources. EkoGraf (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there was actual fighting, it has to conform to our notability guidelines, which this does not. Curbon7 (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - That too. Non-notable event not reported on by mainstream RS. EkoGraf (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or references indicate that the battle actually took place. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Clear consensus is present here, no need to go further. I agree with everything that has been already stated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgos Kakoullis (footballer, born 2000)[edit]

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

Only trivially meets WP:NFOOTBALL with 2 minutes of football in April 2018 after which he completely disappeared. Google News has only passing mentions and a very brief Q&A copied and pasted from his club's website - original article is here on the club website. This is not an independent source (see WP:IS) and has no independent analysis. A Greek language search yielded only more copied and pasted versions of the same Q&A; see Balla and Sigma Live. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significance. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, single 2 minute appearance and lacking significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lag of SIGCOV and fails GNG. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:50, 28 March 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 19:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficient and is insignificant, also fails GNG. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV as demonstrated above and confirmed. GauchoDude (talk) 19:58, 30 March 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. Can be restored in projectspace via WP:REFUND if there is any active interest in maintaining it there. Sandstein 05:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of psychology[edit]

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

Over 18 years, this list has been expanded and recently gutted of most of its content. But, looking at the talk page, the criteria of what should be included here has always been sketchy and I don't see the page fulfilling the content guidelines described at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. This is a decent subject for Wikipedia to cover but even if some editor or some WikiProject wants to take it on as a project, it might be better to start from scratch. Right now, it promises information that it doesn't deliver and its presence on Wikipedia is not a positive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space under Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. BD2412 T 18:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (optionally move to project space, if desired by wikiproject members) Rlink2 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, inviting members to participate in this AFD but the talk page doesn't look like it's had much recent activity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to project space. ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:44, 28 March 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 16:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rolla Nordic[edit]

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

The sources in the article don't establish notability. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:22, 27 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarot de Maléfices[edit]

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

This is an article about an element of a Role-Playing Game. I considered a merge/redirect, but there is so much wrong with both articles I am instead simply proposing a deletion here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced article, and searches bring up absolutely nothing in reliable sources. I checked the French Wikipedia to see if there were any non-English sources they might have on the topic, and not only do they not have an article on this Tarot deck, but their article on the actual Maléfices game does not even mention it, so no luck there. The title of this article could potentially be remade into a Redirect to Maléfices, but none of the current content should actually be retained as it is completely unsourced. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete I too could find no trace of this. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rorshacma. Bermicourt (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively and redirect to Maléfices. I did find two secondary sources after all: One sentence of commentary in the book Game Magic, p. 254, which I have used to reference a corresponding small part in the article. There's also a two-sentence paragraph in this French magazine, p. 37. So I don't think this is enough for an article, but it's not negligible either. Pinging @Rorshacma, Mangoe, and Bermicourt: who had formed their opinion based on "there are absolutely no sources". Daranios (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No my opinion is based on a complete lack of notability. It is not a standalone tarot pack, but a set of cards as part of a game which itself is of doubtful notability and under AFD discussion too. Bermicourt (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bermicourt: Yeah, sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I should have written that it was previously argued based on "there are absolutely no sources". Anyway, let's see what the other AfD brings. Daranios (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Those couple of sentences don't even come close to establishing notability, and that single source you added can be easily added to the main article without the need of a Merge, particularly because none of the rest of the article should be merged at all. As I said in my initial comment, creating a Redirect to the main Maléfices if fine, though, assuming that it survives its own current AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Daranios unless more sources are found. BOZ (talk) 12:22, 2 April 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 16:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danny LAR[edit]

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

Only an infobox for a seemingly non-notable character in an equally seemingly-not-notable soap opera that's still in draft form. Google only turns up results for a musician with the same name. (PROD reverted by the author with no explanation.) Bsoyka (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify no sources, no content. I would say merge with "LAR" article (if somehow the sources can be found for that; that it seems unlikely however), but the LAR article is still in draft space. Rlink2 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not even a stub. Artem.G (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Couple of things I just found: also exists in the draftspace at Draft:Danny LAR, other related articles at Chester Joyt and Meena Ada. Bsoyka (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any WP:RS. I wish there were an appropriate speedy deletion criterion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it has no text content. A draft already exists at Draft:Danny LAR. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Chester Joyt and Meena Ada (both prodded), also characters in the same soap opera. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify When you find incomplete pages like this, I think it's preferable to move the pages into Draft space rather than tag them for AFD or PROD deletion. It saves us from a week of discussion and the editor, usually a new one, can continue to work on their page and improve their editing skills. Drafts don't need to be deleted unless they pose more serious problems so it seems like a win-win situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should clarify my comment above: it was already draftified. The editor made it again 13 minutes later in the mainspace, making no further edits to the draft. Bsoyka (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Draft:Danny LAR exists and has the same infobox. I'm guessing that the page creator thought someone deleted the first page (the draft) when it was draftified. Rusty4321 ^{talk contributions log} 20:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusty4321: The creator was left a talk page message when it was draftified. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 13:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, seriously, this is irredeemable. The creator seems inactive, and Draft:Danny LAR exists anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 31 March 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 deleted A9 by User:Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King vs. Queen[edit]

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

Non notable release by a barely (if that) notable band. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It’s not them, it’s us. We wish the band well, but fails to meet WP:GNG. Springnuts (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Brighten. Rlink2 (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The band page was tagged for speedy deletion. It was practically unsourced and hadn't aged well from when it was written 17 years ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. If somebody does a BEFORE check the band article might get deleted as well. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:56, 26 March 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 16:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darkana Tarot[edit]

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

Not notable - references are WP:ADVERT. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 14:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Springnuts (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deck is self-published (via a kickstarter), and information about it is already covered in the artist's page here. The sources here do not support notability, mostly being blogs. I would have a hard time seeing notability in the commendations from the Tarot community, especially because these are only name-checks in long lists of names. Lamona (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lamona. Bermicourt (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:29, 2 April 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 14:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Nu Omega[edit]

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

Another of these with no proper sources, promo tone and dubious notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - doesn't demonstrate notability, non-encyclopedic tone. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, per nom CT55555 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 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 14:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Phi Delta (fraternity)[edit]

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

Largely unsourced or sourced to itself or affiliates, promo tone and little to suggest notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I checked for "do we need to check for paid editing", and, well, the article has also not been substantially updated in 7 years. Delete it and move on. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this one kept, having said that, I can find only place that would consider a suitable source, and that is "Brothers and Sisters: Diversity in College Fraternities" page 226. (available in google books) That has about a paragraph on Gamma Phi Delta. I'll by happy to edit to include all of the information from that book. Once I do that, I'll come back and do a formal keep).Naraht (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. CT55555 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While normally I consider national fraternities to be notable enough to keep, there isn't enough independent sourcing here -- or any, really -- per WP:ORG. According to the fraternity's own website at [3], all but two of their chapters are inactive -- and I can't find Gamma Phi Delta listed as an active fraternity or student organization on the websites of the two universities where it is supposedly active. Nor is its national fraternal council affiliation, United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities, any help; not only is UCCFS a redlink here, that organization's website expired two years ago and was taken over first by a website about psychics and then by a redirect to a porn site. (This is the most recent legitimate version of the UCCFS website, but I don't see anything about Gamma Phi Delta there.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not notable as the sources provided are not enough and not reliable. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:21, 29 March 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 14:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Psi Epsilon[edit]

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

Totally unsourced and no evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - article doesn't even demonstrate existence. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete² Clearest case for a delete I've seen. CT55555 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources have been provided per WP:ORG. Not only that, but none of the three undergraduate chapters are listed as organizations on the websites of the universities where they are located. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources given are not independent and is also incomplete, also being not notable. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:24, 29 March 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 14:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.D. Grassina 1946[edit]

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

Does not look like they've ever played a match in the Coppa Italia (fails WP:NTEAMS) and they also fail WP:GNG) Dr Salvus 12:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 12:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 12:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insignificant club and the article fails WP:V. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The club has been around a lot time, are you sure there are no sources to improve the article? Govvy (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Yastrebov[edit]

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

No indication of notability, promo/cross-wiki-spam. Icodense (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Russia, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that the sources add up to a WP:GNG pass. Springnuts (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG.--Kadı Message 17:08, 27 March 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 12:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naeon[edit]

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

I PRODed this article, but the author deprodded it without adding independent sources, so here we are. The sources cited by this article are all either associated with the software's author (cites 1-4) or don't actually mention the software (cites 5-8). I've searched, and I have not found any other sources. Hits for 'naeon' on Google Scholar are all unrelated uses of 'Naeon' as a person's surname or an acronym. This doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG and should be deleted. This software is pretty new (just over a year old), so this may be a case of WP:TOSOON. MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any sources. Rlink2 (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 17:15, 28 March 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. Sandstein 16:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Archer[edit]

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

Tristan Archer

Professional wrestler whose notability is marginal, and who was already the subject of one deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Archer. Since there is no longer a special notability guideline for professional wrestling (which is not a sport in the usual sense), only general notability applies. An article should speak for itself, and this stub does not explain why the subject is notable. He holds the championship belt for a German wrestling promotion, which means that the promoters have decided that he can be the champion for now. An analysis of the references should not be necessary, but it shows that they are just trade rags, and none of them are secondary coverage, so that this stub does not satisfy general notability.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Cagematch.net	Information about wrestlers	No - Purpose is to promote wrestling	No	Yes	No
2	wxw-wrestling.com	About the wrestling promotion	No - In the nature of advertising	No - Passing mention	Yes?	No
3	wwe.com	Advertising by the promoters, but does contain information about subject.	No	Yes	Yes?	No
4	cagematch.net	States that subject is champion	No - Purpose is to promote wrestling	Yes	Yes	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These tables are ridiculous and seem designed to give more gravitas to what remains just a series of opinions. I wish people would stop with these sorts of proclamations, and I hope they're just a fad that disappears quickly. I disagree with your assessment of the sites in terms of independence, reliability, and secondaryishness. What WP:BEFORE steps did you take? Doesn't a promotion deciding that a particular wrestler should hold their championship and thus become the face of their promotion indicate some notability (which, I acknowledge, would still need to be supported with coverage in secondary sources)? Brushing off a title as simply being part of a scripted storyline shows a misunderstanding of how and why such decisions are made in wrestling. I don't know that there is enough to warrant keeping the article (I'm an unapologetic inclusionist, but I am commenting rather than voting), but I don't think it's for the reasons you say. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 26 March 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!} 04:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fok[edit]

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

The article was moved to draft yesterday and it was moved to article space again today. It seems to fails either WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. Brian O'Conner 07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brian O'Conner 07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Brian O'Conner 07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Brian O'Conner 07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Brian O'Conner 07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can find significant coverage in reliable sources such as CNBC [4], BBC [5], and others [6], [7]. passes WP:GNG.ZanciD (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fails WP:NPROF, but well covered by various sources internationally, thus satisfies WP:GNG. As for the move to draftspace, the writing did seem promotional. – robertsky (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is clearly notable, the BBC piece alone proves that, Google Books quickly found me a passing mention of his earnings. CT55555 (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Rlink2 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like a typical case of new-page patrollers attacking a new article by draftifying it out of process (less than two hours after its creation) and then immediately nominating it for deletion when un-draftified, without seriously considering the fact that the article as written clearly demonstrated GNG notability. He doesn't pass WP:PROF but that's irrelevant: it's aimed at research professors, not school tutors, a different profession. I wouldn't expect most tutors to be notable (and I imagine that expectation is what led the patrollers to attack) but they can be, through GNG, and he appears to be one of the exceptions. Straits Times, CNBC, and BBC are all major media from different countries, and while the Straits Times coverage of him is not very deep, I think the CNBC and BBC sources have enough depth of coverage to count. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a notable person, and the fact is supported by enough evidence and sources for notability. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:27, 29 March 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. Considered the merge option but the concern about OR shows delete as the better option Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tukohtene Falls[edit]

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

References only trivially mention the fall with no significant coverage, most sections require original research (which does not adhere to the fundamental policies). VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of this article also wrote numerous other similar articles I currently listed for AfD for PROD since they do not have any indication of notability, but similar articles seem to be still created. VickKiang (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and remind the author of these drafts that communication is required. - Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important. All editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner.

I see you have already left a comment regarding these drafts on his talk page, and he has not responded, nor does it look like he has read up on the notability guidelines. He is on the mobile app so it is entierly possible that he is not even seeing any thing you are leaving on his talk page or these deletion discussions. Maybe someone with more knowledge can find a way to notify him in a way that he will see. Rlink2 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your responses! I am tentative of whether he could not see anything at all, because in a previous version of the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JFox_0931&oldid=1079125286), he stated that "Please don’t delete there isn’t much about this small body of water online and I am working on finding more details about it. JFox 0931 (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)" for speedy deletion of another page I did (but later altered it because another editor advised me that it had refs and context). Should I notify him again? Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang Well that edit was also made on mobile, so at the very least he is aware of the talk page's existence, and he is getting notified (or was). I would personally leave another message, this time reminding him about the importance of communication along with the current issues presented here. Rlink2 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One look at the photo, and this is not a notable waterfall. No coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News, Books and main Google searches did not turn any reliable sources that can support notability --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stoney Creek (Delaware) per WP:GEOFEAT. This seems to be very similar to the listed example there of For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. While this is not an island with only a name and location; a waterfall seems to be fundamentally similar enough that this should be able to be merged into the river's article. TartarTorte 15:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources and references for coverage, which makes it not notable. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stoney Creek (Delaware) per WP:GEOFEAT. Djflem (talk) 04:56, 1 April 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goulbourn Middle School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sea Cow (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sea Cow (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Rlink2 (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Notability for stand-alone article not established or asserted. Redirect is technically valid since the school isn't currently mentioned in the district article. Some basic information can be sourced to the school website if no one produces any independent sources. MB 04:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board temporarily. A list of schools in the district article should be established as 0 individual schools are mentioned in the main district article. No sourced content to Merge, and even a mention of one school out of more than 150 would be UNDUE. 174.212.212.60 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Since the article would benefit from having information about schools in the district and this doesn't look to be notable. So it might as well be redirected. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the local school district. It seems doubtful this could pass gng.Jacona (talk) 11:24, 29 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song)[edit]

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

Orphaned, does not meet WP:NSONG 162 etc. (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Zimbabwe. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it looks like a notable song within Zimbabwe to me, particularly given the collaboration between a well-known artist and a Nigerian star, as attested by the Zimbabwe Mail reference in the article (which has sadly gone dead due to a change of website and lack of archiving) as well as [8][9]. A lot of African nations lag behind the West in terms of internet coverage, so it is not sufficient to simply comb the internet for news hits as one might in the US, the print media has to be taken into account too. — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG per Amakuru's argument. Sources presented are relialbe enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The keep votes above are not convincing. The sources presented in those votes and the article itself are unreliable blog reviews and self-promotions. I can find no confirmation that the song received even one, much less "numerous", nominations at the Zimbabwe Music Awards, except for loose allusions in those same blog reviews. That awards ceremony itself gets very little reliable media coverage. Furthermore, claiming that African music is behind in online sources is no longer a convincing excuse, because this rapper seems to have no trouble promoting himself online. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't whether the rapper can self-promote, it's whether the sort of reliable sources which would otherwise convey notability and reflect a general sense that the individual is notable within the country, are available online. African countries still use print media a lot, so we have to be more creative in assessing the true value, and I think the sources I've given are sufficient to demonstrate that this song is well-known and likely to have print coverage. — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion could use more editors familiar with African media sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amakuru. People sometimes forget about the newspapers.com archives and the fact not everything happens on the internet. Especially in Africa, there is a strong reliance on print media and "word of mouth" still. The newspapers that do have a digital department are not as advanced or developed as the ones in more developed countries. Rlink2 (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment paper sources are fine, but they must exist, and they must be independent. This applies to every country in the world, of every culture. I am as keen to avoid systematic bias as anyone, but if we start to tolerate second-rate sourcing, we're not only being rather patronising towards other cultures, but pushing Wikipedia towards becoming a social media blog. Elemimele (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment: Right, we now have three people saying that those offline sources exist. Well if they do, then name them instead of waiting for someone else to miraculously find them. All you need is a formal citation like "Harare Times, October 1, 2021, p. 2". That is sufficient for a footnote in a Wikipedia article. It's not systemic bias to call on someone to show the very same evidence that they already said existed. If I told you that I have a Grammy Award and you asked to see it, what would you think if I merely said again that I have it? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:32, 26 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Conservative Party (Hungary)[edit]

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

This party is not notable, if it still exists at all (last information from early 2018). The party never participated in any national, EP or local elections. Its website is defunct. Norden1990 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any sources, and their website being down is not really a good sign of the partys current status. The first page of the search results is just Wiki mirrors, Fandom pages, and Wikipedia itself. Also it does not meet WP:NPOL. Rlink2 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rlink2 - fails verification. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:54, 26 March 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 07:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knut Albrigt Andersen[edit]

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

Musician does not appear to meet musician notability criteria; see: WP:MN

Socksage (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For things these old, you ought to check the newspaper archives and similar (not sure if relevant since outside of US, but still....). If no sources can be found there, then Delete in its current state. Rlink2 (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You should be telling us whether sources can be found. Otherwise that is not a meaningful contribution to an AFD discussion. The closing administrator knows what notability is. Xe needs you to find out how it applies. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Uncle G, Ok, I will keep that in mind. I too thought it was boerdline, hence why I said we should find more source..
  
  I do not have access to JSTOR so I wouldn't have found that anyway. Thank you for the advice. Rlink2 (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Thorsen 2003 source already in the article is a non-trivial biography of the subject's life and work. The research not done by Rlink2 above turns up things like JSTOR 23506400 and recital dates and recordings in catalogues, so with one full biography and ancillary sources like that there is it seems just enough for an encyclopaedia article here, although I would prefer more. This is very much a borderline case. Some of the things from the main source should not have been used verbatim or in Wikipedia's voice, too. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should note, before I made this AfD discussion page, I had already checked for more information about this musician by doing a cursory search that included looking into digitized Norwegian newspaper archives, and had come up empty. That I (an Anglophone who knows little about Norwegian pianists) did not find anything doesn't mean there is nothing there. Agree that this is a borderline case -- clearly I lean towards Delete, seeing that I made the nomination in the first place. Socksage (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a borderline case, this discussion might benefit from a few more days of consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there any more sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:33, 3 April 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksons Creek (Delaware)[edit]

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

The article concerns a minor creek with only trivial mentions, not significant coverages, from sources and should not be an article. This was previously a PROD article, but the tag was somehow deleted by the editor who created the article, hence an AfD is opened instead as the PROD could not be replaced. VickKiang (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Delaware. Shellwood (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete the link https://modelmywatershed.org/draw just shows that the creek exists. If that's all was required, then every creek would have an article. Plus, it would at least be better to make it link to the exact creek in quesiton, not just a general map. Same thing with the other link. The only link establishing some sort of credibility is the delewarepublic one, but its not strong enough for an article Rlink2 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, this is very interesting but, sadly, I really do think it breaches WP:NOTGUIDE. Not so much a lack of significant coverage as, frankly, not a significant subject. We have a brook near us and, while there is an article about our locality that mentions the brook, I would never expect to see an article about the brook itself. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant for creating an article for it. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:33, 29 March 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.