Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 06	October 08 >

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 no consensus as to which would be the ideal merger target, but that does not require continued discussion here as deletion is not in play. Star Mississippi 19:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Slovak Gypsies in the United States[edit]

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

Not sure why do we need an article on such a specific topic. What's an "Hungarian Slovak Gypsy"? Or have Gypsies from Hungary and Slovakia been artificially combined together? The sourcing of the article is poor too, many sources only cite info relevant to Hungarian Gypsies while other sources just mention a lot of Hungarian Gypsy musicians. All of this info could be easily integrated into another article, such as Romani people in the United States. Super Ψ Dro 18:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Hungary, Slovakia, and United States of America. Super Ψ Dro 18:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/migrations/gyp/gypstart.html

the Smithsonian, Harvard University, Dr. Ian Hancock, Roosevelt University, Oberlin college, Pittsburgh University, Cleveland State University, Professor Steve Balkin, and far too much more to list, but these highest places that recognize The Hungarian Slovak Gypsies in America is not enough for you? How much more do you need, do they all need to get involved and make this look as ridiculous as it already is. Try doing some research, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Take it from the Experts, the do know. Gypsyviolins (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just who are you to say why this is needed, do you see the citation saying this is Part of a series on Romani people. Just what did you look at to check anything. The John Brenkacs orchestra was in the 1920s, my grandfather is the cimbalom player on the picture and all the rest are related. My grandfather died in 1943. Why do you ask questions on specific GYPSIES and not know the answer. I wrote the book "Gypsy Violins Hungarian Slovak Gypsies in America" and also wrote this Wikipedia on them. They deserve to be on here just as much as anyone else. You question if Slovak and Hungarian Gypsies been artificially combined, would you like to talk to Dr. Ian Hancock on this issue, he will back up everything on this and is the leading expert of Roma. What qualifications do you have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsyviolins (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comments don't suggest notability either. Please refrain from personal attacks Oaktree b (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the combination of topics, the terms "Hungarian-Slovak Gypsies" and "Hungarian-Slovak Roma" do appear to be used in sources - note the hyphen. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then a solution could be moving this article to make it a general one about this subgroup, and not only centered in the US. Super Ψ Dro 08:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to the "Romani in the USA" as suggested, removing most of the fluff in the article though. It's too wordy for what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources aren't acceptable (database listings or pintrest). at the very least, we need subsections and headers before we can do much with the article. Photo used in the article also has a dubious Creative Commons license attached to it, also nominated for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found an article, Gypsy style, which would be an excellent repository for the material of the article in question. "Hungarian Gypsy Music", which has enjoyed a certain popularity in the West, is not the same as traditional Roma music (which uses its own scale), although, by tradition, the musicians in the small Gypsy style orchestras are ethnic Roma.

Gypsy style music is musicologically Central European Romantic, with standard scales and rhythms and a prominent violin..The musical motifs are based on traditional Roma music. Brahms's Hungarian Dances, though played with a larger orchestra, are one example of the musical style.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Hungarian Slovak Gypsies" means, Gypsies born in (or tracing their ancestry to) that part of Hungary that is now Slovakia. It would be wrong to call them "Slovakian Gypsies" when they and their ancestors had never lived in Slovakia. And this article is not about all Hungarian Gypsies, just those who originated in that part of Hungary. Maproom (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose merge. The nominator's main issue seems to be with the specified degree of intersectionality being identified in the topic. The sources do indeed address that intersectionality in detail. I would further note that this type of specification is now common in academic publications in the social sciences. Studies in diasporic movements frequently examine identity through the lens of intersectionality where different aspects of geography, culture, social constructs (gender, religion, race, sexuality, etc.), etc all intersect into the way people groups and individuals within those groups experienced geographic displacement. I'm not really seeing anything wrong with the topic as defined, although the article could definitely use a re-write. I don't think a merge is warranted because it would add undue weight to the target article.4meter4 (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term does exist in scholarly literature, but it is strange we don't have an article or even a redirect on Hungarian Slovak Gypsies (I'll create a disambig for now). For now, I'd support a merge of the referenced content (big chunks of the current article are unreferenced) to Romani Americans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tezaab – The Acid of Love[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "sources on Google Books" with no improvements/reviews added, so the sources were added myself. There is no reason for this to have an article because the only thing that can be sourced is "It is an adaptation of the American film Unfaithful". Could not extract any new information. DareshMohan (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to search with different keywords but no significant coverage found. Fifthapril (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM. There is only one book which covers the film in google book, BollySwar: 2001 - 2010, which I would not consider reliable because the publisher is a vanity press. Other than that, all the other hits in google books are referring to a similarly named Hindi film from 1988. No evidence of independent significant coverage in RS.4meter4 (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect—The opening says this is an adaptation of Unfaithful (2002 film); therefore, merge what can be into that article and redirect the title thereafter. --13:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete as lack of WP:SIGCOV, Fails WP:NFILM. Ginbopewz (talk) 12:15, 10 October 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. Consensus is clear. Star Mississippi 17:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey A. Krames[edit]

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

Bringing this here for discussion. While one of his books has a Kirkus review, it appears his titles were published by the publishing company for which he works, rendering neutrality a question. They're not self published, but nor are they independent. I am unable to find other evidence of notability as a businessman or author, many speaker profiles, but they're not independent. Star Mississippi 21:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Star Mississippi 21:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. I found several more book reviews (and in multiple languages) in my university library. See below.4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen, Al (April 12, 2002). "Not Quite Perfect". The Washington Post. p. A29. (review of The Rumsfeld Way)
Steiner, Marijan (2020). "Jeffrey A. Krames, Voditi S Poniznošću: 12 Lekcija Iz Vodstva Pape Franje". Obnovljeni Život. 74 (5): 689. (review of Lead with Humility: 12 Leadership Lessons from Pope Francis)
Rotella, Mark ; Gold, Sarah F ; Andriani, Lynn ; Scharf, Michael ; Chenoweth, Emily (2003). "Review: What the Best CEOs Know: 7 Exceptional Leaders and Their Lessons for Transforming Any Business". Publishers Weekly. 250 (18): 215.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Bristol Lane Voss (2002). "Review: The Rumsfeld Way: Leadership Wisdom of a Battle-Hardened Maverick". The Journal of Business Strategy. 23 (4): 45.
Kennedy, Carol (2005). "Review: Jack Welch and the 4E's of Leadership". Director Magazine. 59 (5): 30.
Jensen, Kristina (2002). "Review: The Jack Welch Lexicon of Leadership: Over 250 Terms, Concepts, Strategies and Initiatives of the Legendary Leader". Quality Management Journal. 9 (3): 68-69.

Keep More sources 1, 2, are available online. Meets the WP:GNG criteria. I can also improve the article and add citations once I get some extra time. Fifthapril (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fifthapril: I'll look to incorporate these into the article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment—I've started doing some improvement on the article, starting with trimming down the opening para and adding a source. I do think that the article can be kept, but it needs work. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:17, 8 October 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 11:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Minder[edit]

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

All coverage on Minder is related to the Legend of Ben Hall, which has its own article. Not too much more you could expand on this. Uncited biographical information. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Switzerland and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of multiple spam articles from SPAs to spring up around the Legend of Ben Hall. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references mention him in long lists and only in connection with the Legend of Ben Hall, and the interview is a primary source. I don't see any other solid google sources, too. --Suitskvarts (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Democratic Socialists[edit]

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

Non notable political party. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. All sources are either primary or from affiliated/non-reliable organizations. W 42 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Russia. W 42 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The party seems to have never fought an election under its own name, and was just one of a large number of groups supporting one unsuccessful parliamentary candidate. Nwhyte (talk) 08:49, 14 October 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 12:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current theories of dream mentation[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement, this appears to be a personal essay, based largely upon a single work. Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this topic. Complete WP:SYNTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, um, what the heck is "mentation"? Great that is has FOUR theories, let's figure out what it is first. Not sure who the article is for, certainly not a general audience, if they get tripped up on the title. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yikes. I'd normally suggest a redirect to Cognitive neuroscience of dreams but the content is too much SYNTH to even warrant that, and the title is very unlikely to be used. Ovinus (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My mentation has me believing that this article fails WP:GNG. This article appears to be a WP:SYNTH of the sources, which themselves do not appear to actually support the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article does not warrant a deletion. I would rather amend this entire article than remove it. The research here is not entirely original and can still be changed to fit Wikipedia’s guidelines. To respond to Oaktree, Mentation is defined as “mental activity”, and it doesn’t matter who the “audience” you so talk about is aligned to fit with. That doesn’t matter. Every Wikipedia article must have the same tone. I do agree that this article is in the layout of a personal essay, but that is not enough for deletion. If it can be improved and reworked into a Wikipedia article, then go help and fix it. Also, dream mentation does have linked sources. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9153032/ and https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-06910-004. Senomo Drines (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fundamentally flawed in a way that cannot be fixed via editing, it's scope is WP:OR. It's irrelevant that there are journal articles that include the words "dream mentation" when you search for that string of words, none of those publications discuss theory or anything approaching the scope of this article's subject. Mentation within dreams falls within the scope of something like Neuroscience of sleep or Rapid eye movement sleep; it does not have enough literature or significance to warrant a standalone article, and the fact that "mentation" of any kind is not mentioned in either of those articles is evidence of that. - Aoidh (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The article is largely based on Jeannette Mageo's odd approach to dream studies through the lens of cultural anthropology/ ethnographic research; although in this case its more like case studies focused on individuals rather than a larger cultural study. The whole thing is rather far fetched as a basis for an article because it is the type of study that is highly subjective, not reproducible, and is not likely to be repeated due to its interdisciplinary design. As such, we aren't likely to have multiple sources supporting an article on this topic at any point in time.4meter4 (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Effectively an orphan article, backing one person’s pet theory. Nwhyte (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Rawn Associates[edit]

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

This article does not comply with WP:CORP. As the table below shows, the article lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of" it as required by WP:SIRS. Furthermore, it has long had issues with violations of WP:PROMO and while a lot of the offending material has been removed, it is questionable whether what remains is still promotional material, unverified as it is. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Companies. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Source assessment table I created for the article. As you can see there is no single source that counts towards the GNG.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Harvard Graduate School of Design	The source is a profile of the founder in his role as an academic member of staff; these profiles are often self-created	Harvard is probably a reliable source	It provides merely a passing mention of the company. The directory cited is merely a directory of the staff's profiles and passes no commentary or analysis on the company.	✘ No
New York Times	There seems to be no connection between the company and the NYT's coverage	NYT is a reliable secondary source	The article makes no mention of the firm	✘ No
Wall St Journal	In so far as it relates to the firm it seems to be deriving its information solely from an interview with the partner	WSJ is reliable secondary source	The company is mentioned merely in passing as the architects of a project in the context of an article talking about something unrelated to the firm.	✘ No
Architect Magazine	The article relies on quotes and interviews with the firm	Same as above. Article relies heavily on quotes from the partners.	~ The article itself does focus on the Company, but it is in the context of a list of 50 architects' firms which is not really significant coverage as such.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the notion to delete. I can agree that the content and sources that appear in the articles current form are not enough on its own but this architecture firm is one of relative prestige in the American architecture profession, I believe it should be improved rather than delete it. I updated the article and think it should be up to snuff now.

Arguments against deletion:

The firms masterwork, Seiji Ozawa Hall, is considered one of the best architecturally significant music halls ever constructed in the literature of acoustic experts and musicologists. I expand on this in the article and its sources should count toward GNG.

The source from Harvard discussing positions held by it's principal founder describing his prestigious positions in the best architecture schools in the US and his elevation as a Fellow of the AIA (Fellowship is bestowed by the institute on AIA architects, the leading membership association of architects in the United States, who have made outstanding contributions to the profession) it is the highest honor that can be bestowed upon a professional architect in the US. The accolades and personality of the principal architect guide the philosophy and direction of architecture firms so I would argue that this could count toward GNG but I do understand the point made in the table.

The material that was considered promotional (awards granted by the AIA, the leading membership association of architects in the United States), while yes they can be and more often than not used by architecture firms to promote themselves, are the very thing that justifies the significance and notability of the firm. I have verified these through secondary sources in a new update and they should count toward GNG.

I take disagreement the analysis of the last source mentioned in the table. A firm considered one of the 50 best architecture firms by Architect Magazine, affiliated with AIA is consequential and significant. Of approximately 70,000 architecture businesses that exist in the United States the fact that William Rawn Associates lie in the top 50 lands it at the top .07% of architecture businesses. I believe this should count for GNG. TrotskTrotsk (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply and for your work adding new sources to the article. Sadly, as I read the guidelines and policies, I still think the article fails to meet the notability criteria. I shall address each of your points in turn:

"this architecture firm is one of relative prestige in the American architecture profession". As I understand the rules, no company or organisation is inherently notable just because they may be important in their field. All that matters is whether there are multiple sources that each are independent from William R. Assoc. (WRA), that are reliable and give WRA significant coverage (WP:ORGCRIT).

"The firms masterwork, Seiji Ozawa Hall, is considered one of the best architecturally significant music halls" This argument does not work in my view. Notability is not inherited by a company merely because it is associated with notable things, people, events etc. Just because they have designed buildings that may be notable, does not mean they are notable in their own right. They may very well should be mentioned in their buildings' articles, but it does not support them having their own.

Further, on your point about the source you have provided for the Seiji O. Hall[1] I'll gladly admit it is reliable, but it still should not count towards the GNG. This is because it is neither independent nor is it giving WRA significant coverage. They give the firm a few short mentions in an article that is about something else (ie the Hall) and any information they do provide is either a quote from a partner or reads like a press release. This means even if it were giving them significant coverage it is not independent from them and thus it does not count for the purposes of the GNG as applied by WP:ORGCRIT. Having looked at the new sources you provided, I would argue they suffer from the same issue; they could well support a mention of the firm in an article for the building but they should not be used to justify the existence of WRA's article because they are not independent and do not provide significant coverage.

Regarding your point about the Harvard source, I won't press the issue too much because you seem to accept it is not independent and that is enough for it to not count towards our assessment here. I will note, however, that even if William Rawn was notable (and I am not sure that being a fellow of the AIA would be enough), WRA does not inherit any notability from its lead architect.

"A firm considered one of the 50 best architecture firms by Architect Magazine, affiliated with AIA is consequential and significant." Generally, however, mere lists of the 'top 10, 50 or 100' do not count as significant coverage, but indeed are an explicit example of something considered trivial coverage. Now, I'll grant you that the article in Architect Magazine is more than a mere name drop in a list, which is why I assessed it as providing partially significant coverage, but in any case it is not independent and thus it is not a source valid for complying with the GNG.

Lastly, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the effort you put into finding new sources which support the continued existence of the article; I know it takes a lot of work. Sadly, I would argue that if after all that work, the sources that have appeared continue to either be non-independent or not provide significant coverage, then this suggests to me that the article should indeed be deleted. Jtrrs0 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing anything myself save for namedrops, non-independent source, and quotes from the subject (which of course cannot be used to support the notability of the subject). Ravenswing 14:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a consequence of the relisting I had another look for reliable sources. Sadly, I didn't find anything new. I could only see unreliable pages like LinkedIN pages, business listings, and pages that give them mere passing references. Indeed, I am convinced that new sources are very unlikely to appear and given the article doesn't meet meet WP:ORG. Thus, my view, remains, that we should delete. Jtrrs0 (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; once again, rationale at WP:SERIESA. Wikipedia does not exist to document industry award winners or to amplify the prestige of companies. FalconK (talk) 23:14, 9 October 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 23:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C3controls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP; very little coverage in reliable sources, and there is only one statement in the article that is actually sourced. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources :

c3controls to Sponsor 3R Racing's Tommy Archer :

https://us.motorsport.com/sro-america/news/3r-racing-tommy-archer-sponsor-renews/1204592/?ic_source=home-page-widget&ic_medium=widget&ic_campaign=widget-&nrt=160

New Product Launch :

https://www.designworldonline.com/c3controls-introduces-upgraded-line-of-iec-pilot-devices/

https://www.amazon.com/s?srs=12701453011

https://www.3dcontentcentral.com/parts/supplier/c3controls.aspx

Operations in Europe :

https://www.automationmag.com/8096-c3controls-opens-its-european-operation/ Kartikpandya (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Of the sources above, Motorsport is a press release. DesignWorld is a press release. The Amazon link and this supplier listing are obviously not reliable sources nor do they show notability in any way; they're product shops not references. AutomationMag is a press release (as evidenced by the fact that the same exact press release can be found in other sources). Press releases and product listings are not independent sources, and if that's the best we can find for sources (I couldn't find anything) then the article's subject lacks notability, at least as determined by WP:GNG and/or WP:NORG. - Aoidh (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C3controls:

This page is there on Wikipedia since 2011. I just added more information to enhance the page - Logo, pictures, and history.
C3controls is a reputed manufacturer of industrial automation devices. It's a global company with a presence in the USA, India, and El Salvador.
Also. there is enough information on the internet that can be used as citations for this company.
Right now the company is being run by third generation. The company was founded in 1976.
It was also selected by Whitehouse in 2001 by president George Bush - https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ql0vAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PtsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2530,3528
It deserves a space on Wikipedia with all the updated information.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartikpandya (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me for excessively wikilinking Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but there are multiple sections there that address your points. Being reputed or having a global presence (3 countries is global?) do not show notability. If there are sources then provide them, because I certainly wasn't able to find any reliable sources with significant coverage; that sources exist in a Google search doesn't mean they're suitable references for a Wikipedia article, per WP:GNG. The age of the company does not make it notable, and the newspaper cited is a trivial mention. - Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Aoidh's source assessment and the sources linked to in the above copied comment do not contain in-depth coverage of the company itself. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SERIESA, GNG, CORPDEPTH, ADMASQ, etc. FalconK (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily due to the lack of information on private firms in general. "Control Systems Corporation" appears to have been acquired by Liebert (company) (see Newspapers.com clipping), while it was a named subidiary of Emerson Electric, but was later renamed to an Emerson unit. Some years later, Emerson was aquired by Platinum Equity and renamed to Vertiv. Now, both Emerson was and Vertiv is a public company; therefore, it is possible that "Control Systems Corporation" and maybe it's other name of C3controls, could appear in some available materials, but just regulatory filings would be insufficient to support the article, though it could support mention in another article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:44, 9 October 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. There is a consensus that sources exist to establish notability. Concerns about the article being "autobiographical" should be handled at WP:COIN. Legoktm (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klim Zhukov[edit]

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

The subject of the article is of no importance for the English Wikipedia: it is written that Zhukov is a historian and historical reenactor, although he does not have a scientific degree, and his education is not historical. From the heap of sources given, there is not a single significant one. Sincerely, Emenrigen (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a suspicion that the article (and its Russian original) is autobiographical, since the contribution of the creator, Мит Соколов, is mostly editing this article.. The hobbies presented on the user's page coincide with the hobbies of the person in the article. Sincerely, Emenrigen (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article contains sources with similar names: "TOP 10 fascinating historical bestsellers", "Soldier of the Emperor" - a historical fiction novel, "Poll: Russians trust Dud most of all on the Internet". It seems that the author tried to create the appearance that the article was supported by many sources, but did not look at their content. 144.206.129.3 (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What? (My English is bad, sorry.) Okey. Let's see for example, what you brought, "Poll: Russians trust Dud most of all on the Internet" [1]. What is this source? It is Newizv.ru. What does this source say? "Исследовательский холдинг Ромир подвел итоги опроса: кому доверяет Россия в 2020 году – интернет-деятели" ("Research holding Romir summed up the results of the survey: who does Russia trust in 2020 - Internet figures"). (Romir is led by Andrey Milekhin.) And what does this rating say? 1. Yury Dud. 2. Nastya Ivleeva. 3. Garik Kharlamov. 4. Dmitry Puchkov. 5. Pavel Durov. 6. Ilya Varlamov. 7. !!! Klim Zhukov !!!. (8. Ida Galich. 9 Irena Ponaroshku. 10. BadComedian.) So what does "author... not look at their content" mean? --Мит Сколов (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in Russian media here, here and here, for a start. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His books have been reviewed in the Mir Fantastiki [2][3]. As a blogger he was researched in the magazine of Russian Public Opinion Research Center [4]. --Мит Сколов (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PR article. According to the rules, coverage should only be in authoritative sources, which the Mir Fantastiki is not. In addition, as was emphasized by the user of Emenrigen, Klim Zhukov has neither a historical education nor a scientific degree, that is, de facto does not fall into the category of significant people (I ask you to familiarize yourself with these rules). Now, given the available sources, Klim Zhukov is only a science fiction writer. Noraskulk (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

And the article says that Klim Zhukov advised the film "Alexander", although the earliest source says[5] that he simply participated in the extras. Noraskulk (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

But this source says that he is "a specialist in military history and reenactor, as well as a consulting historian for the film "Alexander. Battle of the Neva" (2008). See p. 18 --Мит Сколов (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some people say: Klim Zhukov does not have a history education. But for fact-checking: Klim Zhukov is a graduate of the Faculty of History of St. Petersburg State University [6]. Yes, Klim Zhukov did not complete his PhD [7] (his doctoral adviser was Anatoly Kirpichnikov [8]). But Klim Zhukov is a cited historian [9][10][11][12][13]. --Мит Сколов (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your first remark: you refer to the student's remark (on page 15 it is written: Yulia Vitalievna Kaporina, student, Krasnodar), i.e. Again, this is not a reputable source. And by the way, she makes a number of mistakes that are unforgivable even for a student: she calls Klim Zhukov a "specialist in military history", which is not true, and, calling him a "consultant" for the film "Alexander", refers to a YouTube video where he (again!) calls himself that. At the moment, the only authoritative source says only that Klim Zhukov only participated in extras in this film. Noraskulk (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
- But this book has an editorial board headed by Dr Ахметов Ильдар Гумерович. --Мит Сколов (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your third remark. Did you know that when YouTube recently banned Dmitry Puchkov, with whom Klim Zhukov is closely associated, Dmitry Medvedev found words of support for Puchkov? [14][15][16] --Мит Сколов (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Мит Сколов, Dmitry Puchkov is a completely different story. Firstly, in the English-speaking segment, he is known as a developer of computer games, secondly, he is a professional voice actor, and thirdly, he is a blogger, which is said in the article about him. By the way, the article about Klim Zhukov could well be left, but only indicating that he is a science fiction writer and amateur historian (because he has scientific publications). Noraskulk (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
But Zhukov is also a blogger. He works closely with Puchkov. Sources highlight this. [17][18][19][20][21] --Мит Сколов (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"By the way, the article about Klim Zhukov could well be left, but only indicating that he is a science fiction writer and amateur historian (because he has scientific publications)." I'm glad you heard me. Feel free to fix it. You see that it is difficult for me to write in English. By the way, let's see, Professor Leontii Voitovych recommended Zhukov's book and referred to it. [22][23] --Мит Сколов (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I admit, the article has minimal significance. I am changing my mind. Noraskulk (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- You say you don't like "she calls Klim Zhukov a "specialist in military history", which is not true". But why is he called a military historian in the media? [24][25][26][27] --Мит Сколов (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Klim Zhukov has no historical qualifications. We need a source confirming that all these people have the right to refer to him as an authoritative historian. But since he doesn't have a degree and can't teach, I assume there is no such source. Noraskulk (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

In response to your second remark: in most of the works cited, articles by K. Zhukov are only mentioned in the list of recommended literature. In addition, these are secondary sources, and here needed a primary one, confirming that Klim Zhukov is an authoritative historian with a scientific degree, and, therefore, he can be referred to as an authoritative historian. You yourself confirmed that he did not even defend his dissertation. Noraskulk (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
There are very famous historians who do not have a doctoral degree, such as Alan Cameron (classicist). --Мит Сколов (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Мит Сколов, Alan Cameron is Charles Anthon Professor Emeritus of the Latin Language and Literature. Klim Zhukov, as we found out, is a blogger and amateur historian. Emenrigen (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and Alan Cameron doesn't have a "doctoral degree". I do not want to seem intrusive, but I hope that Noraskulk will appreciate it: Alexey Karpov doesn't seem to have a PhD. Sorry, I didn't start pedaling this fact. I don't know what you mean by "amateur". Klim Zhukov is the author of works that are cited by other historians. Please take a look at the links [28][29][30][31][32]. When that's not enough, tell me and I'll bring more. You also forgot to mention that Klim Zhukov is also a reenactor and writer. --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I did not find information that Alan Cameron does not have a Ph.D.; but if this is the case, he definitely has some kind of scientific degree, otherwise how would he teach. Emenrigen (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help you: "...Without ever needing to complete a Phd, a point of considerable amusement and pride, Alan took up teaching positions in Glasgow and London before joining the Columbia faculty in 1977; he remained in the department until his retirement in 2008." [33] --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
И как будто бы в вузах не преподают без степеней, см. хотя бы ru:Старший_преподаватель. --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found another source, which, it seems to me, Noraskulk will appreciate, and which helps to understand who Klim Zhukov is. See p. 155. And there it is also confirmed that Zhukov has the education of a historian. --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are deliberately not compromising and trying to piss me off.Emenrigen (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understood correctly. What have I done wrong?

Мит Сколов (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Мит Сколов (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to claim that Klim Zhukov is allegedly a historian, then you must provide an authoritative source (I specifically gave a link to the Wikipedia rule) where this is directly stated. Otherwise I submit a request to the admins. Or do you really think your antics are funny? And you do not need to switch to Russian to prove your case.Emenrigen (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you my story. I read books, and if some good author recommends another, I'll definitely take a look. So, for example, Sunil Amrith pointed me to Victor Lieberman. Some time ago I read Georgi Derluguian, where he recommended Zhukov (see how by the way... hint: as a military historian). I wrote about it in the Russian Wikipedia... look what happened ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Вниманию_участников/2022/08#Жуков,_Клим_Александрович. --Мит Сколов (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if the BBC calls Zhukov a historian, is that authoritative for you? [34] --Мит Сколов (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for this statement? Again, in the hint words of Klim Zhukov. That is, there are sources calling him a military historian, but there is no authoritative source confirming this. And repeat once again - what is the significance of Klim Zhukov as a blogger and science fiction writer for the English-language Wikipedia? Emenrigen (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer above - 17:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC) --Мит Сколов (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Исторический социолог Г. М. Дерлугьян отметил следующее: «В устном формате с удовольствием и изумлением слушаю в интернете лекции военного историка из Питера Клима Александровича Жукова. У него и подавно всё „прикольно“, полно иронических речевых прибамбасов, однако в то же время профессионально»

And where does he recommend Klim Zhukov here? Derlugyan just laughed at him, besides, as I understand it, he is often called a "military historian" in the media (of course, not seriously) because he created such a recognizable image for himself. Good morning, by the way. Emenrigen (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!.. What can you say about the words of Professor Vadim Dolgov: "Klim Zhukov - historian, also by his education"? [35] --Мит Сколов (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Dolgov meant that Klim Zhukov studied at St. Petersburg State University but this does not make him an authoritative historian, and indeed a historian from an official point of view. Emenrigen (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What can you say about Dr. Yuri Bohan's characterization of Zhukov as a "Russian researcher"? See p. 127 --Мит Сколов (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norasulk said: We need a source confirming that all these people have the right to refer to him as an authoritative historian. Emenrigen (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's wait for @Noraskulk --Мит Сколов (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been given the floor, I will decide to sum up the preliminary results. Noraskulk (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Preliminary result[edit]

Emenrigen, I give you a 100% guarantee that this article will remain, and in the form in which it exists now. I agreed with Мит Сколов that the available sources are indeed notable, and there are plenty of them to preserve the article. If you agree with me, I remind you that according to Wikipedia rules, the nominator has the right to withdraw the nomination for deletion himself. Noraskulk (talk) 14:49, 10 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quandre Mosely[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Not currently notable, may be soon. All that I found for GNG is this article from the Brunswick News. Allow recreation as soon as he makes his NFL debut. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to drafts Article also needs some serious cleanup and expansion before it should be an article as well once it passes GNG, which should be a matter of time since he is on active roster.--Rockchalk7 17 22:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the fence although there is more coverage of him than just the Brunswick News, particularly the Lexington Herald-Leader [36] and Courier-Journal [37]. Rlendog (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: based on the sources above. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:08, 14 October 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!} 23:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Kwenkeu[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify. There is some coverage, such as this from The Philadelphia Inquirer; and this and this from The Washington Post, but that's all I could find. That may be enough to just get by GNG, although it may be better to draftify until he makes his NFL debut. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sources BeanieFan11 brought up are close to meeting WP:GNG, and I don't think it would be draftified for long. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 20:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mainly based on the articles posted by BeanieFan11, but also due to this from the Star Tribune and this from Sports Illustrated. Hatman31 (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, at this stage it fails to satisfy WP:SPORTSBASIC. If he gets an actual NFL game then that would just tip the scale but at the moment all I am seeing is listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. Dan arndt (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are more sources than just those frmo BeanieFan11 and Hatman31 - for example this from the Atlanta Constitution and this from the Star Tribune. Easily passes GNG and SPORTSBASIC is irrelevant if the subject passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 13 October 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!} 23:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Harley Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify. There is some coverage, such as the following: this, this, and this from The Miami Herald; this from Pro Football Network; and this from Darik News, but that's all I was able to find. May be enough to just get by GNG, although it might be better to just draftify until he makes his NFL debut. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand why this was brought to AfD, and it's super close to being too soon, but if this is draftified, it won't be long at all before it get's published again. But, the sources that BeanFan brought up I think is sufficient for GNG, albeit barely. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 20:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The four best significant sources on him are written during a few day span in April/May 2022. I feel this is WP:TOOSOON. Alvaldi (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found some sources in addition to BeanieFan's such as this and this so I think he barely passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 13 October 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. Star Mississippi 19:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JiDion[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, not notable. Hasn't won any major awards, all he's known for is harassment and haircuts. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I find are sites about as reliable as TMZ saying he's been banned from Twitch. I really don't want to know more about it, it's gossipy nonsense at this point. Well below what we require for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has a Complex piece written about him and is being described as a "YouTube star" in reliable sources such as the New York Post. I will give you that some sources might not be as reliable, but he has enough coverage in sources that are. Célestin Denis (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBIO clearly states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." No matter the reason he's notable, he has enough coverage in reliable sources. Célestin Denis (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG [38] [39] [40] There exists a very large amount of significant coverage of the subject, a quick google search reveals a large number of sources covering him. W 42 13:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure he can pass WP:GNG but do you think he passes WP:NBIO? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBIO isn't relevant if the subject passes WP:GNG. "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." - from WP:NBIO. W 42 12:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over WP:BLP concerns. Not a fan of having an article on someone of marginal notability that's entirely about their controversies. ~~If there were coverage going deeper into other aspects of his life, I'd reconsider.~~ Ovinus (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage going deeper into other aspects of his life. [41] Célestin Denis (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's actually good source. I guess it depends on how the article is balanced. It's just bad optics to have BLPs that are predominantly about controversies. Struck for now, and I'll think about it. Ovinus (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The nature of his work (i.e. pranks) means that unfortunately the article will be dominated by controversy, but at least in this case it's something that he actively courts. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are youtubers that are way less relevant than him that have Wikipedia pages. 150.250.82.249 (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 7 October 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. Star Mississippi 19:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpism in Canada[edit]

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

Synthesis and original research about a basically made-up concept. Orange Mike | Talk 01:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some quality sources such as [42] I have no opinion whether GNG is met, but if it's notable it should not concern us who made it up. (t · c) buidhe 05:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. Article is bulked up with mentions of carrying American flags (which isn't necessarily "Trumpism"), spreading of misinformation (which isn't necessarily "Trumpism"), denouncing of Trudeau by Musk (which isn't necessarily "Trumpism"), and so on. The smaller amount that actually has to do with the article title is (a) a few politicians have been compared to Trump disputably (b) some people in the United States (tip: people in the United States are not in Canada) gave opinions about Canada (c) some people in Canada say they would vote for Trump if they were American voters, e.g. according to a poll some Conservatives did ... but notice that the poll said far more were pro-Biden yet where is the "Bidenism in Canada" article? Not there, and shouldn't be there, because if we had an article every time some Canadians expressed a favourable view of some American, the articles would consist of WP:TRIVIA sections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic isn't clearly defined and the sources are not from experts. The articles seems to imply that Trumpism has spilled over into Canada when in fact Canada has long had its own right-wing populist tradition. For example, the Reform Party of Canada (anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, anti-abortion, anti-LGBT etc., pro-hanging, etc.) got 19% of the vote in the 1997 election, becoming official opposition, before merging with the Progressive Conservative Party. TFD (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dratify This topic might be notable, but given the current state of this article, It would be best to remove this from the mainspace and go back to the drawing board. X-Editor (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As the creator and primary editor of this article, I appreciate the input from the editor who called for deletion, the two editors who supported the deletion and the one editor who called for it to be "dratified". I am hoping this call for the AfD will lead to contributions by other editors towards improving, not deleting or draftifying this article. Higher quality Wikipedia articles almost always have more editors. Since it was nominated as AfD on 22 September, I have been working on it to improve it by focusing on the helpful comments left by the 3 editors who called or voted for deletion and the one editor who called for it be draftified. I will continue to look for new and more robust RS. I am grateful to Wikipedia Library for providing access to what would otherwise be difficult to access sources. Editors can always delete specific content that is not relevant without deleting the entire article. I have created sections in the article's talk page where editors can discuss content they feel is not relevant to the topic. I hope that anyone who votes on this would take the time to carefully consider the RSs where Trumpism in Canada has been discussed at length, before deciding whether this topic is "made-up", or is not notable. There is considerable discussion in the RSs on the degree to which the political and ideological movement called Trumpism emboldened what had already existed in Canada's political landscape, and/or inspired/informed/inflamed new behaviours, and this can be developed further in the article. I have also worked on describing the credentials of RS authors and using inline citations to clarify that the words are not those of the editor but the authors themselves. This helps to remove anything that may be considered to be "original research". I spend a lot of time over the years contributing to Wikipedia as a volunteer and I enjoy it; my reputation as a principled and competent Wikipedia editor who follows Wikipedia protocols is important to me. I would also like to point out that this article was reviewed by User:MSG17on 15 January 2021‎ MSG17 and was assessed as a (C) Politics (Low), Conservatism (Low), Philosophy (Low), Donald Trump (Mid), Canada (Low) Oceanflynn (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oceanflynn, you wrote, "There is considerable discussion in the RSs on the degree to which the political and ideological movement called Trumpism emboldened what had already existed in Canada's political landscape." Wouldn't it make more sense to have an article about what already existed in Canada, then outline how it was changed by Trump? The Ford family for example was active in Canadian politics before Trump ran for president. In fact, Daniel Dale, who became famous by writing about Doug Ford, went on to cover Trump as chief factchecker. Note that Rob Ford died before Trump was elected president. It's as if the article was written to explain right-wing politics in Canada to Americans. TFD (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per X-Editor 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^(🕷) ^- ^(✉) 20:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Delete. There's a lot of good work here, but I'm not convinced it's Wikipedia work. Although reliable sources are used, the case for the topic itself as coherent is made by assembling those sources together, rather than sources severally and individually establishing it as a "thing" in the literature. So it's WP:OR. On Google scholar, the only references for "Trumpism in Canada" are three, and all by the same authors, and two are chapters from the same book. That's not enough to establish it as a subject in its own right. Other hits on scholar and google books are merely in passing. This article would be better shaped into the right genre and published in the real world.OsFish (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:No original research. While a work of quality, sadly this is the type of work that needs to be published in an academic journal or magazine or editorial in a newspaper rather than in a wikipedia article. While sources are used, they are essentially an original synthesis of those sources rather than an accurate reflection of the actual sources themselves.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to inconsistency with WP:OR. Yes, there ARE some good sources in the article, as buidhe mentioned, but even they broach the subject questioningly, i.e. Is there "Trumpism" in Canada or were recent events due to pandemic fatigue, Canada's own anti-globalist movement, or something else? A possible North American Union and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of N America are examples of projects that elicited Canadian populist sentiment that could be described as Trumpist, even though they were 10+ years before his time.--FeralOink (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much original research. I'm not sure much is salvageable, or even if it would ever be worth an individual article. Maybe a sentence or two can go to articles like Populism in Canada, Fascism in Canada, Racism in Canada, and/or Trumpism. Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Way too much original research, not nearly enough WP:RS-based content. Sal2100 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 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!} 22:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 UEFA Under-19 Futsal Championship squads[edit]

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

Another laundry list of non-notable youth sportspeople with no evidence of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. The FAs and UEFA would be considered as non-independent in this case. The article has no navigational purpose. This is no different to 2022 U-16 International Dream Cup squads (AfD) and 2019 AFC U-16 Women's Championship squads (AfD) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. Giant Snowman 11:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. Radzy0 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 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!} 22:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amirreza Rafiei[edit]

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

Third-string goalkeeper in Iran. Might become notable eventually but currently has never played in the Persian Gulf Pro League and, as far as I can tell, has never been the focus of significant coverage so I don't think he passes the WP:BIO or WP:GNG tests. Pichpich (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iran. Pichpich (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Fifthapril (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:03, 8 October 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!} 22:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holding Moses[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews in a BEFORE. Won minor awards DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nowhere near enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to meet GNG. Won some minor awards, but does not meet WP:NFILM either.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - also this was paid editing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviews and enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources were not found. ZanciD (talk) 21:28, 10 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Wurman[edit]

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

Yes, there are many mentions of Hans Wurman in Google Books, but I am not sure whether they are significant enough to establish notability. So, unless they are significant enough to establish notability, my prod reason (fails WP:NBIO) still holds. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator is correct about Wurman coming up often in a Google Books search, and he also appears in a lot of online directories. Unfortunately he always appears briefly in lists of credits as an arranger, backing musician, etc. in other people's works. It looks like he was a longtime studio ace who helped a lot of people, but I can find nothing that focused on him and his career specifically. Also relevant here are WP:SPEAKSELF, as an article should do more than just introduce the subject's existence, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's an article in the LAT that says he escaped the Holocaust. It's a sad fact, but still a cursory mention. --Suitskvarts (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet WP:GNG. NMasiha (talk) 18:13, 13 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Futsal at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' team squads[edit]

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

Laundry list of non-notable youth participants in a tournament for a minor sport. The article does not cite any independent sources and the content is largely just a duplication of this FIFA document. If anyone can cite significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the teams (i.e. not FIFA or the FAs for any of the involved countries) then I'll happily withdraw. Youth squad lists are generally deleted; see 2022 South American Under-17 Women's Football Championship squads (AfD), 2019 AFC U-16 Women's Championship squads (AfD) and 2022 U-16 International Dream Cup squads (AfD). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Slovakia, Oceania, Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list of non-notable children? Get rid. Giant Snowman 11:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other AfDs and being a list of all non notables. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it potentially violates BLP and child protection guidelines on WP. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:16, 12 October 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. Legoktm (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sutcliffe[edit]

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

WP:TWODABS applies. The surname is the obvious primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page. Move Sutcliffe (surname) to Sutcliffe and add a hat note for the “town” in Nevada per nom. Frank Anchor 22:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, followed by a move and hatnote precisely per User:Frank Anchor. BD2412 T 06:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Move surname page, add hatnote for place, as above. This is a reversal of what was basically a cut-and-paste move, or split, in 2007! PamD 08:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've added a see also section with one entry and revised the Sutcliffe (surname) line description. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:14, 11 October 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!} 22:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shoewallet[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:notability guidelines. The website is defunct. The external link on the page leads to an unrelated page with a foreign language. A google search brings up nothing other than the defunct website and Wikipedia page. This is an irrelevant, defunct product with very little information. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 21:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination. Fifthapril (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This product would have been notable if it had caught on enough to garner significant attention, but since it did not, I too agree with the nomination. TH1980 (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Agree that this does not meet WP:N. I looked at a few related phrases via google ngram: waist pack, waist wallet, fanny pack, butt pack, shoe pack, shoe wallet and shoewallet. Of these, only the shoe(_)wallet showed no hits, but there is no Waist wallet article, nor a Shoe pack article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:25, 9 October 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. Star Mississippi 03:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grandview Lake, Indiana[edit]

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

A large development with its own lake, the history of which is outlined on their website. I did find a bunch of reports about their septic system, but other than that it's all real estate and gazetteers. Mangoe (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Madeline (part of me) 12:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage consists mainly of real estate notices and advertisements, does not meet GEOLAND or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 13:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which coverage? Where? In the article? Which references are you referring to, because none of what you've mention appears in the article...so that doesn't appear to be valid argument. Djflem (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com shows page after page of legal notices and occasional advertisements [43][44][45][46], and the two potential SIGCOV sources in the article [47][48] aren't independent of the subject. I'm not convinced that this meets GEOLAND either. "Town" has various meanings in different states, and in this case it seems to describe a plot of land that has been divided into lots for sale similar to a subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One would expect real estate ads/legal notices for any/all of the thousands of places of in the USA, wouldn't one?. Unclear what the point is, since that's normal and certainly not disqualifying. Indiana statues certainly make a distinction between towns and subdivisons (which in itself is certainly not disqualifying), but certainly the county and the courts of law legally recognize Grandview Lake as a unincorporated town (not a muncipalituy), as is not uncommon in Indiana. While platting does not necessary mean the town developed (as have oft been repeated as reason for deletion), in this case it definitely did. Djflem (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:NGEO per ref's. Djflem (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ohio Township, Bartholomew County, Indiana. I agree it probably passes WP:NGEO, but we always have the discretion to merge notable topics into places where they can enjoy context. Neither article is long, and there is no real downside to merging imv. Coordinates can be supplied in the section. Ovinus (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If GEOLAND is met, "keep" and "merge" are both still possible; which is preferred?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:NGEO. I'm not really seeing a benefit to merging with Ohio Township which is a town next to Grandview Lake. The two are geographically close but otherwise not related.4meter4 (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, in Indiana townships are not towns, they are subdivisions of counties. Grandview Lake is within and locally governed by Ohio Township. Reywas92^Talk 04:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe this passes either GEOLAND or GNG. Looking at the refs listed, most lack significant coverage. GNIS is not considered sufficient for notability, and the two refs about the dam seem to be of similar quality (listing the dam in databases). The one source that appears to have significant coverage is the McCray book. This book was published by the HOA, however, and thus cannot be considered independent. Thus, this article appears to lack significant, independent, coverage and should be deleted in accordance with our policies. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I am NO FAN of one-wikipedia-article-for-every-single-place-in-the-Universe. However, it appears from https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/gazetteer/2022_Gazetteer/2022_gaz_place_18.txt that "Grandview Lake" is a census designated place, which would appear to satisfy WP:NGEO. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, it appears that Indiana had 129 CDPs in 2021 but now has 406 CDPs in 2022, and Grandview Lake is in fact one of the new ones. These are normally updated at just each census so I'm not sure why there were so many new ones this year here. I've gotten wary about CDPs with how many pure subdivisions there are now like Renaissance at Monroe, New Jersey but this may be adequate. Reywas92^Talk 02:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: That is weird, the huge increase. Thanks for your insight. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:42, 12 October 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!} 19:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Gregory[edit]

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

According to the AAGPBL website ([49]), she played in 1946 in the league, but the only thing that is known about her is that her last name is "Gregory." That's it. The AAGPBL website doesn't list anything else, not even a team or first name. Fails WP:GNG, as I was not able to find any significant coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long way off from GNG, half the article only mentions the AAGPBL is mentioned in Cooperstown. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only don't we know her first name, we also don't know how many games she played or any other pertinent performance criteria. Fails WP:GNG (no SIGCOV) and prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."). Cbl62 (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. Also this was nominated by user:BeanieFan11, who has developed a reputation for finding sources and making significant contributions to “save” articles on sports topics from being deleted. This shows me that there is likely very little in source archives and the topic would not meet GNG. Frank Anchor 03:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the weakest parts of the old WP:NBASE was the granting of 1 game auto-notability to players in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, a World War II-era women's novelty league that sought to economically capitalize on the fact that the quality of play in MLB had declined significantly during the WWII era, as so many MLB players were fighting in the war and were not available to play baseball anymore. After an initial blip in publicity during the war years, this league quickly faded into obscurity once the war ended and all of the MLB players came back, and was more or less completely forgotten until nearly 50 years later when a Hollywood movie was released that thrust it back into public consciousness. The end result of all this is that we have created Wikipedia articles about many of the players in this league that are lacking even such basic details as dates of birth and death. In the case of this player in particular, we don't even know her first name, we have no stats at all on her (so, we really don't know if she ever played in this league or not, she could have very well been a benchwarmer who never actually made it out onto the field), and we don't even know what team she supposedly played for. To summarize, I would be shocked if any player who played in this league after 1945 has received any type of significant coverage at all. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:18, 9 October 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!} 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Los Altos Mountain View Aquatic Club[edit]

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

In my opinion, this team did not pass WP:NTEAM. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NTEAM, WP:NORG, and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 7 October 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Evangelist (newspaper)[edit]

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

Failing WP:NMEDIA. It may have long history, but in my opinion, does not have significant history. They are not significant publication, not authoritative, and haven't produced any well known work. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany per WP:ATD. No reason to not include a brief section on the newspaper in that article.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and New York. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany. Djflem (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany. Manannan67 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany. I did some looking in the Internet Archive and Chronicling America and could not pull out supporting information, which suggests this is a very local publication closely associated with the Diocese. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany. This decision is more appropriate. Ploreky (Got any problem?) 11:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC+8)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 17:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Andrade[edit]

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

Previously deleted through WP:PROD for failing WP:SPORTBASIC and still no indication of notability. I cannot find anything significant about this person, who by all accounts hasn't even yet featured at a national level. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Argentina. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails notability for athletics. Haueirlan (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC, and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May become notable in future but currently it fails WP:GNG. Fifthapril (talk) 05:28, 8 October 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 Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Rishi College[edit]

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

Could not find substantial significant coverage on the topic. Zero inline citations; only extant citation is a place which only lists the college in passing mention. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University; the college is under the umbrella of that larger institution.4meter4 (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing notable about this college or redirect to Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University as suggested above. Haueirlan (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would also agree with a Redirect. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: As User Haueirlan said. Contributor008 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 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!} 19:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Octavian Droobers[edit]

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

This club is one of over a hundred UK orienteering clubs (See British Orienteering Website). As far as I can tell, only one other club is listed, and this club is Edinburgh University Orienteering Club, which is (I think) the most successful club in the country. The only references are from the Club's own website, with only one from British Orienteering (which is the same as any other affiliated club, and does not state Octavian Droobers as exceptional). This club does not fit the club notability guideline (as far as I can tell) set out on the Wikipedia Sport Notability guideline section for Orienteering. There is a lot of club history on Wikipedia, but this information is not independently verifiable. I can not find good sources. I would recommend deletion. Spiralwidget (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG. All I could find in a search were listings in publications by British Orienteering or publications by the group itself; both of which lack independence as sources. Entirely not notable as an organization.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the references are self-published. Fails GNG. Haueirlan (talk) 19:15, 7 October 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 Pull Tiger Tail#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost World (album)[edit]

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

Currently unsourced and I found zero coverage. Not even blogs or press releases or anything. Redirect to Pull_Tiger_Tail#Discography. QuietHere (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. QuietHere (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV There is no evidence this album even exists in RS; so I don't think a redirect is even appropriate in this instance. It should probably be removed from the article on the band as well.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pull Tiger Tail#Discography. The album certainly exists/existed, although I think it was only ever available as a download, not in physical form... you can still find it online: [50], [51]. Having said that, there is no evidence that this passes WP:NALBUM – a digital-only release of B-sides and demos, from a band who had already split up by the time this was released, doesn't make me confident that any in-depth coverage of this record exists . Richard3120 (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pull Tiger Tail#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 8 October 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. See withdrawal comment below. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paws.[edit]

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

With the addition of the reviews from Gigwise and Rock Sound I was able to find, this might, at the absolute barest minimum, scrape by SIGCOV. That, of course, is assuming the reliability of The Fly (whose review is archived here), a publication I'm completely unfamiliar with. So maybe, just maybe, this could be a keep, but I'm very unconfident in it. I vote redirect to Pull_Tiger_Tail#Discography (although that's gonna need a check for sources as well, it's not looking very good either). QuietHere (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. QuietHere (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NALBUM per the three independent reviews produced by the nominator. @QuietHere Here is an article on The Fly in The Independent. It was a notable publication. We have an article on it at The Fly (magazine). Also, you might consider whether The Lost World (album) is notable while you are digging into Pull Tiger Tail. That article has zero references at present.4meter4 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. Thank you for this info on The Fly. It being defunct since 2014 probably explains a significant amount of why I've never seen it around. 2. Had a look at The Lost World and came up empty so here's an AfD for that. QuietHere (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would consider The Fly to have been a reliable source, and remember it well from living in London in the 2000s, where it was widely available in almost every location that had some connection to music – it may have been free, been published by the owners of London music venues, and looked like a booklet, but it most definitely was several steps up from a zine, with serious professional full-time journalists and writers and an editorial team. Editor JJ Dunning is now editor-in-chief at Red Bull Media UK, and has written for The Guardian and Q. Deputy editor Harriet Gibsone has written several pieces for The Guardian. Chief staff writer Ben Homewood is now the features editor for Music Week. Former editor Niall Doherty became deputy editor of Q after leaving The Fly and has written for Mojo, Classic Rock, Rolling Stone UK, NME, FourFourTwo and others. Richard3120 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as well. I also see they have an entry at RSMUSIC. I probably should've checked more on this site before posting my submission. QuietHere (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere You might consider withdrawing your nomination. I can assist in closing it for you if that is case. That said, I think the other album nom was defintely worth bringing to AFD.4meter4 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 4meter4. I know WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument for AfD (rightly so), but Pull Tiger Tail did receive airplay and media coverage during their brief career, and I strongly suspect there is coverage of both the band and this album in print issues of NME and possibly Q from the time. I'd be far less convinced that the rarities album got much attention, though. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120 I don't know why you linked "THEREMUSTBESOURCES". We have three independent critical reviews already linked here in the discussion. The sources are here for all to see already.4meter4 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I was talking about my statement that this would have received coverage in NME and Q. But I take your point that the existing three sources are enough for this to pass WP:NALBUM without additional hypothetical sources. Richard3120 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a fair point. Consider this AfD withdrawn. QuietHere (talk) 00:15, 8 October 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 already speedy deleted and salted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyacinth Alia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability; just a political wannabe TheLongTone (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted as the subject meets the requirement for Wikipedia standard for being the governorship flagbearer of the All Progressives Congress in the 2023 Benue State gubernatorial election Alfred Timbee 12:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Timbee (talk • contribs)
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Its also not encyclopedic in tone with a lot of grandiose self important claims; so fails WP:PROMO. The main claim to fame here is he got suspended from his work as a Catholic priest for getting involved in politics. Entirely not notable. This should be WP:SALTed as this page was recreated after an earlier AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 7 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revok[edit]

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

Promotional, suspicious article. Not passes general notability guideline 多少战场龙 (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was involved in a lawsuit with H&M, [52], here [53] and here [54], plus many other stories. I think he's GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided by Oaktree b.4meter4 (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added the citations mentioned above. I think the CV stuff should be removed. Anyone else agree? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead and removed the CV items. They were all linked to the same dead links. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:49, 11 October 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 12:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Slave Ship (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Pardon my failure of BEFORE, but I don't see anything in the article that even asserts notability, let alone prove it. The only source is the English DVD distributor, the director's name is a redlink, and it does not even have a Japanese wiki page (ja:奴隷船 (曖昧さ回避) dab page has it as a redlink. No such user (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film stars "Kyōko Aizome, Japanese erotic actress, singer, writer, and AV and film director. She has been called "the first hard-core porn actress in Japan". It has an entry at AllMovie, another entry at FilmStarts, still another entry at MUBI and a detailed entry with photos at Alligatorgraphe. It also has an IMDb entry with 32 photos. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. I could find no reviews or sources discussing this film directly and in detail. @Roman Spinner, while Kyōko Aizome may be notable, notability is not inherited.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4, the five links (AllMovie, IMDb, etc) that I provided within my "Keep" vote are not focused upon delineating Kyōko Aizome's career, but primarily this film. As for notability is not inherited, the content of that essay on Wikipedia deletion policy contains this text, "That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roman, AllMovies and IMDB are film databases, which means their scope is basically every film ever recorded, but it is not our mission. They are not even considered reliable sources (but are appropriate external links), so cannot establish notability. Alligatorgraphe is a personal blog. We need multiple independent reviews about this film and coverage of more than the plot. Even its IMDB entry is a dead end, with zero critics reviews and zero user reviews. No such user (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such user, I contend that any film with Kyōko Aizome, who is a celebrity in Japan, is by definition notable even if editors of Japanese Wikipedia had not gotten around to creating an entry for this film. The five websites above, including entry at FilmStarts and entry at MUBI obviously feel sufficiently strongly about it, having devoted time and space to the film. As for AllMovie, its reputation must be held in sufficient regard by The New York Times which includes on its website thousands of AllMovie film reviews. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find significant coverage even when searching in Japanese. Only relevant hits are news about the then pending release, [55], [56]. – robertsky (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I appreciate the keep vote's effort, but we need to respectfully disagree (note: I added a neutral note at WikiProject Film asking for if more refs could be found, but will abstain from this discussion). Databases such as IMDb discouraged by WP:NFILM, more databases and trivial mentions does not show notability. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database. Besides, IMDb is generally unreliable on WP:RSP. Note that its reputation must be held in sufficient regard by The New York Times which includes on its website thousands of AllMovie film reviews- yes but in this case AllMovie's coverage is a database with user reviews, which should be self-published and generally unreliable. Further, films get no inherited notability because of notable cast members. The response is an example of cherry picking, the essay states both [t]hat is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. If it refers to the additional inclusionary criteria per WP:NFILM, this meets none of these guidelines. Further, the essay also notes [t]he spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections (see the specific guidelines for books, films, music and artists); common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available. Besides, why is an essay cited to bypass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, which doesn't approve inherited notability if it doesn't meet the additional NFILM guidelines? As databases are insufficient to be considered as critical commentary, this fails SIGCOV. Otherwise, if database entries are SIGCOV almost every film listed on IMDb could have an article. Many thanks for everyone's time! VickKiang (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a film featuring Aizome is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion, there's no indication this porn movie is significant. Fulmard (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be noted that the Wikipedia entry for this 2010 feature does not describe it as a "porn movie", but as a mystery-pink film, which refers to "almost any Japanese theatrical film that includes nudity (hence 'pink') or deals with sexual content. This encompasses everything from dramas to action thrillers and exploitation film features". Also, while Kyōko Aizome was once associated with pornography, she retired from performing in such films as of 1994. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ottavio Scarlattini[edit]

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

Unsourced article about 17th century man who wrote 3 books in Italian. Person seems entirely non-notable. FeralOink (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and History. FeralOink (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a mess but there's a lot more in the Italian version and Scarlattini undoubtedly existed and was arguably notable. Deletion ain't cleanup (I removed the copyvio text) but this will take quite a cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Google books has many sources which address the subject directly and in detail, including an entire chapter on him in this book beginning on page 373. I've added several references to the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not seeing how this subject could be non notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage in Italian sources 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, lazy nom, total lack of WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone 08:29, 9 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Ritter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Charlie Ritter

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

I have been able to verify that this guy existed in a table of baseball statistics in an old book. However he appears to have only played for two days and two games. He does not appear to meet the baseball notability criteria WP:NBASE and is not mentioned as a significant and notable player on Buffalo_Bisons_(National_League). In the very small chance that anyone finds something significant about a player who only played two games, it should surely appear there first. JMWt (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a SABR publication about Ritter, but I haven't been able to access it. If anyone knows how to navigate the SABR web site, the citation is: "Who was Mr. Ritter?", in Bill Carle, ed.: Biographical Research Committee Report, SABR, November/December, 2011, p. 4.

this is a single paragraph in a newsletter. The total context is as follows

In 1885, a man named Ritter played two games at second base for Buffalo. We list this player as
Charles Ritter. We have been able to locate a Charles Ritter from Buffalo who died in Florida in 1958. But was he the ballplayer? The late Joe Overfield, in his book 100 Seasons of Buffalo Baseball, left Ritter unidentified. If his name was indeed Charles, we have probably have found him, but my guess
is that his first name was not listed. Can someone identify Mr. Ritter, our Mystery of the Month?

I personally don't think this helps the case of "keep"! JMWt (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These things are no longer unknown. Nemec's book was published a decade later and confirmed Ritter's identity, year of birth, year of death, and more. The ongoing research and publications IMO demonstrate that Ritter's significance is enduring. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This rather complete bio in a book [57], I'm assuming paper sources exist, probably in early newspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's David Nemec's book. He is an authoritative source. Cbl62 (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a single paragraph, asserting that the person existed and talking about his baseball statistics. How does that meet WP:NBASE? JMWt (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NBASE is not the relevant standard; it is in the process of being repealed in its entirety. The relevant standard is WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NBASE is pretty much useless, talking only about being in Cooperstown. GNG is probably a better measure to use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't know that. How do a couple of newsletters - where the authors seem unsure even of the guy's name - meet the GNG? JMWt (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although his career was short, he played at the highest level of his sport -- the National League. Given that we are dealing with a 19th century figure, I believe there is sufficient coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. In particular, eminent baseball historian David Nemec devotes 20 lines to Ritter in his book written over 100 years after Ritter's career ended. The obituary (now included in the article) and the SABR research piece also add to the notability calculus to some degree. Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Zero in-depth significant coverage. So far the keep voters have not made a policy based argument. We only have one quality source (Nemec's book); and even that is rather thin (not much to say; so I wouldn't call it in-depth coverage). One very tiny paragraph in one source does not match the standard of "multiple sources". WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid policy based argument. Produce them (a minimum of 3 in-depth independent sources), or we delete. Period.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that there is no "minimum of three in-depth sources". GNG requires multiple sources, which means that two is sufficient. Indeed, in some cases, one may be sufficient. The Nemec book (20 lines dedicated to Ritter by an eminent historian) is clearly one. The Buffalo newspaper obit also has some depth, and the SABR piece less so. But for an athlete who played 137 years ago, that's pretty darn good and GNG-satisfying in my book. Cbl62 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this person played in the National League and there is at least some WP:SIGCOV about him in an era where media coverage is not even close to the level it is today. Even if not a technical pass by the letter of GNG, this is a case in which WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE can be used. Frank Anchor 03:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I might want more from a recent subject, given the age of the subject I am satisfied with the sources provided to meet GNG, especially since there was no internet preserving sources 100+ years ago. Rlendog (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the Nemec source is significant coverage (given that WP:SIGCOV specifically says "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"), and I don't think that deleting this article would improve the encyclopedia, so I vote keep. Hatman31 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62, the Nemec source is significant coverage given that we are dealing with a player from the very early years of professional baseball. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:18, 13 October 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 Central Michigan Chippewas football. ✗plicit 12:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pete_McCormick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pete McCormick

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

I have been only able to verify that this guy existed - he is listed in a table of head coaches in an old book. I can't find anything else at all, and to be honest I don't think there is anything to find about someone who coached college football in the 1890s for 4 games. In the vanishingly small chance that there was enough to say about the guy to write a paragraph, it should surely be on Central Michigan Chippewas football. JMWt (talk) 07:08, 7 October 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 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for sources... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The Isabella County Enterprise (found through the CMU Library) of November 6, 1896, says the following (PD): "The first game of football played in this city came off last Saturday on the Normal campus between Alma and the Normalites. It was well contested and resulted in the score of 6 points to 0, in favor of the former team. The Normal boys played well, considering the small amount of practice they have had, and the fact that their opponents are a crack team, and consist of some good players. The success in their first attempt is greatly due to the management of the captain, Peter McCormick, who played with Albion last season." This may help in searches. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's an obituary here for a Peter McCormick from Michigan (who would be 24 years old in 1896) here, although it doesn't mention anything about coaching. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This page from the Central Normal Bulletin (faculty/student publication) in 1908 has more detail, and it seems clear that McCormick was the captain, elected from the ranks of the players, and not a professional coach in the modern sense. I think it's enough to mention him and other early captains in the admittedly unwritten "History" section of Central Michigan Chippewas football. Mackensen (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Central Michigan Chippewas football.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Central Michigan Chippewas football. Per sources referenced by both Beanie and Mackensen. Cbl62 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gogo Abel Ujile[edit]

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

BLP of a non notable individual. Sources are all passing mentions of him being quoted in a single press release carried in several news outlets, or don’t mention him at all. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scant evidence of notability: fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, good causes that he champions, but nothing notable for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nomination, Non notable individual indeed. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non notable individual. Does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandibelly[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND with no substantial hits in Google and no hits in GNews and G News Archives.

Has unreferenced award section that states that they only won local awards in their city. Lenticel ^(talk) 06:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 06:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBAND per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Couldn't find any coverage. Fifthapril (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The band name is derived from a play of words of "BeerBelly", combining brandy, meaning "liquor", and belly." I am richer for having read that. Fails WP:BAND. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to what the others said above, I also can find no reviews of their albums, at least in English, and the band is only visible in their own social media sites and streaming entries. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNot seeing enough coverage to warrant this article.Yüsiacı (talk) 22:27, 11 October 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. Sources were shown to exist, but no clear consensus as to their depth of coverage emerged. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashed Al-Mugren[edit]

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of SIGCOV being available. Jogurney (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [58], [59], [60], [61], and [62] among many many more Arabic sources. Having been a fully pro and internationally capped Saudi Arabian top flight player during 2000s, there are dfeintily many offline sources as well. Clearly was significant figure in Saudi Arabian football. He is internationally capped for Saudi Arbaia in World Cup qualifying and played for Al Shabab, one of most successful Saudi Arabian teams. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interview, a strange ramble about him being transferred and another three interviews do not equal a GNG pass. Dougal18 (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is not a single WP:SIRS among those five links. The Al Yaum (newspaper) link is some kind of letter to the editor or editoral commentary which while directly about Al Mugren, provides opinion and no in-depth coverage. All of the other newspaper links (from Al Riyadh (newspaper) and Al Jazirah (newspaper)) are interviews with the subject and contain no more than a sentence or two of independent reporting. This is far, far short of WP:SPORTBASIC. Jogurney (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I found many many more Arabic articles not listed here from those same newspapers as well as other websites. Having been a fully pro and internationally capped Saudi Arabian top flight player during 2000s who played for Al Shabab, one of most successful Saudi Arabian teams, there are definitley many offline sources as well. Clearly was significant figure in Saudi Arabian football. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks,

Do you care to share one that looks like WP:SIRS? I can't see how anyone would argue that the GNG is met without some evidence. Jogurney (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 08:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found Dougal's assessment of the sources provided above quite apt, and vaguewave assertions that "other sources exist" (based on reasoning explicitly rejected by consensus) should be disregarded as invalid arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources cited above are a mix of interviews and other coverage that does not contribute to a GNG pass, and I could find nothing better from a search. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found more sources like [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], and [70]. I found many many more Arabic articles not listed here from al-jazirah.com as well as other websites. There are definitely many offline sources as well, having been a fully pro and internationally capped Saudi Arabian top flight player during 2000s who played for Al Shabab, one of most successful Saudi Arabian teams. Clearly was significant figure in Saudi Arabian football. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources appear to be interviews and press releases mainly which lack independence or are passing mentions.4meter4 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the interviews are a bit borderline, but they contain some prose as well. There's a LOT of coverage from the latter part of his career. Here's a dozen or so newspaper articles from last century - can someone who speaks Arabic review them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marabar Caves[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability. A search does show some passing mentions, but at most they just go into more WP:PLOT elements that take place in a single scene. To be clear, the events in the caves quite literally the events that motivate the whole novel, and it would be like writing a separate article for the trial of Tom Robinson and To Kill a Mockingbird. Maybe someone could expand on the plot details to A Passage to India. But as a separate subject, this does not have significant real-world third party coverage. Jontesta (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you comment on the various Google Scholar entries that seem to provide coverage for this fictional feature? I am unable to evaluate them myself, as I am unfamiliar with the novel, but can see that they exist and look like they should be evaluated. Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an honest question, and the analogy in my nomination was my best way to sum up the sources from the previous AFD. This is like writing an article about the trial of Tom Robinson for To Kill a Mockingbird, or Picture of Dorian Gray (painting) for The Picture of Dorian Gray.
The plot of the A Passage to India is literally a party of characters deciding to visit some caves, where a British woman is injured in the dark and blames it on an Indian character, and the ensuing fallout of that accusation. "What happened in the caves?" is the central event of the novel, and some of the sources treat the caves more as a subtitle of the novel itself (such as "The Marabar Mystery" or "The meaning of the Marabar Caves"). I would grant that the sources briefly mention the symbolic value of the caves, as dark and mysterious, and as part of the age old discourse on Orientalism and the "mysterious" East. But the caves are also mysterious because the central mystery of the novel is literally the what happened in the caves, and the reaction of the characters to that mystery. (And, by extension, the audience reading the novel, and the scholars who write about it.)
In short, the sources provide an analysis of the events of the novel as a whole, rather than anything notable about the actual space. There's some good scholarly material, but it would be on topic at the main article. Jontesta (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for broadly the same reasons as in the previous AfD. Significant coverage has been clearly shown to exist. The nominator muddles things by comparing this article on a fictional setting to a hypothetical article on a fictional event: while fictional events like Tom Robinson's trial are unlikely to be independently notable, fictional settings very often are, and we have lots of articles on them. The nominator muddles things further with their last comment above: if you think this subject should be covered in the main article rather than in a separate article, you're proposing a merge—which there'd be a stronger case for, as per WP:PAGEDECIDE we can sometimes consider independently notable topics as part of broader articles—and this is the wrong venue. (Improving this with some of the sources identified has been on my to-do list for a while, and will remain so if it's kept, but I unfortunately can't give a sense of when I might actually get round to that.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support a merge for content that hasn't been written yet. I nominated this for deletion after reviewing the sources, because I had strong doubts that even a hypothetical expansion could cover anything that isn't really about the novel and its most central scene in the plot. But a redirect would be most appropriate if you don't plan on expanding it until later. Jontesta (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping them. - Kylelovesyou (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding some citations. I agree this article seems worthy of keeping. - 73.15.56.47 (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge. Repeating my vote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marabar Caves. I don't see that the nom addressed the soruces found during that discussins by User:Arms & Hearts. I found them mildly convincing them. Of course, it woild be nice to finally see someone actually improve this article... but what we have in the Mystery/Interpretations sections is not too bad. PS. Per the last comment by A&H I'd also be ok with a merge and redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree that the "Mystery of the caves" section is just trying to stretch a plot summary into something that it is WP:NOT, and you'd need more/different coverage make a stand-alone article about a single scene. This might fit within the main article about the novel, but even the interpretation subsection isn't really WP:NOTABLE outside of the main story. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A read of the sources covers a lot of the plot material at the main article. But there is some scene analysis worth WP:PRESERVEing. Archrogue (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose merge. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV which was established in the first AFD by Arms & Hearts who provided links in JSTOR to several literary journal articles that address the topic directly and in detail . To quote their keep vote from the first AFD, "Admittedly a bit unusual for a fictional setting, but there's a lot of coverage in reliable sources: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], and that's just from the first page of Google Scholar results. The article could be rewritten to focus more on these critical debates and a lot less on the plot summary, but it's a notable topic. – Arms & Hearts" This should not have been re-nominated.4meter4 (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for me the question is whether the plot point really has a "life of its own" outwith of the novel. I think we have some evidence that it does, given it has been a specific subject of scholarly study. On that basis I would !vote keep. JMWt (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these caves have clearly been the subject of scholarly analysis that goes beyond a mere plot summary, as seen by the sources cited by 4meter4 above. As such, they clearly pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The secondary sources listed above show that there is WP:SIGCOV after all, and as they have already been presented in the first deletion discussion, this should have been clear from the start. As there is analysis of the function and symbolism in those sources, the suggestion that there is only WP:PLOT information seem likewise in error. Daranios (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above. The new sources show there is sufficient WP:SIGCOV to establish notability though the article certainly needs improving and refocusing towards those critical debates; but this does not mean we should delete per WP:DINC. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:45, 10 October 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 Lynnette Seah. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jade String Quartet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE done and no articles came up. Singapore's newspaper archive NewspaperSG turns up nothing. Note that there is another Jade String Quartet from New Zealand which will turn up in google search and should not be mistaken for this Quartet from Singapore. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Singapore. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lynnette Seah: Best I could find was this. Most of sources only cover the quartet in passing. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was able to find this and this. I'm not sure if this is enough though. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is not enough for GNG (general announcement) and the second source does not have enough for SIGCOV. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lynnette Seah.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 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 Nutriskwela Community Radio. czar 03:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYNG[edit]

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

Contested prod. Does not meet WP:GNG; all sources are just passing mentions or not independent. MB 15:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MB 15:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nutriskwela Community Radio or delete. No standalone notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. The sources in the article are reliable enough, with some in-depth, IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SBKSPP. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nutriskwela Community Radio or delete, and this should extend to the couple of other transmitters linked in the Nutriskwela list which lacking significant coverage and lacking meaningful content. (Please ping me if a separate bundle nomination or other discussion is opened on them.) Fails GNG. Last year a long string of broadcast transmitter AFD's all closed as delete, prompting warring over the advice and claims presented at Common outcomes for broadcast as well as the content and status of WP:BROADCAST. Both were updated to say this area is subject to GNG rules after this RFC. The debate and outcome of that RFC thoroughly smashed the stance that licensed broadcast has inherent notability based on citing mere evidence of existence/operation, or that such articles can be can be defended by WP:REFBOMBing the page with routine or frivolous cites. This article demonstrates exactly what was rejected by broad community consensus. The article currently contains two sentences, stating nothing more than existence and location. That can and should have been sourced by a single ref. Instead it has a 9 ref WP:OVERCITE, solely to pack in worthless redundant refs.
- (1)2021 NTC FM Stations" (PDF). foi.gov.ph. Routine government documentation that the site is legally entitled to exist and operate. The RFC rejected attempts to use these kinds of sources for Notability.
- (2)2019 NTC FM Stations" (PDF). foi.gov.ph. Duplicate of ref 1, merely for a different year. Worse than worthless.
- (9)2016 Annual Report psa.gov.ph. More routine government documentation of existence and operation. See refs (1) and (2). Worse than worthless.
- (4)Tuning in to Radyo Kausbawan. pitfulcrum.wixsite.com. Asserts and appears to be a student-operated news at the same university operating this radio station. Not even run on a university website, it's a Selfpubishling webhost. Aside from extremely questionable Reliability, this fails our independence criteria. It is highly likely that there are even some of the same students working both projects. Worthless for Notability.
- (6)HAPPINESS IS another winning moments for Radyo Kausbawan of Palompon Institute of Technology. pit.edu.ph. Deleted FACEBOOK post, linked from the same university operating the station. I'll go with it failing independence, and allow the reader to try to guess how many other policies guidelines or broadly-accepted-essays might apply to deleted facebook posts. Worthless for Notability.
- (3)RONDA 1 media group visits Eastern Visayas, exchanges notes with counterpart HIMSoG-8. m.samarnews.net. Two sentences with absolutely nothing beyond the fact that it exists and a broadcast book exists. Worthless for Notability. Fails as passing mention, and for routine mention of mere existence. Worthless for Notability.
- (7)45th Nutrition Month launched in Tacloban. samarnews.com. Same source as (3). Fails for the exact same reason. Two sentences, passing mention, routine mention of mere existence. Worthless for Notability.
- (5)4th Quarter 2019 Joint MPOC and MADAC Meeting. palomponleyte.gov.ph. Our 4th gov citation. This hardly rates as a fraction of one sentence passing mention. It's a raw namedrop, one among a list of several, relegated to a parenthetical. Worthless for Notability.
- (8)Welcome to Palompon HIMSOG 8 and RONDA 1. palomponleyte.gov.ph. Same source as (5). Our 5th gov citation. A single sentence passing mention. Worthless for Notability.

Ping SBKSPP and SeanJ 2007, requesting one or both of you please help me understand which of the refs above you believe supports Notability? Either that, or perhaps reconsider your keep !vote? Alsee (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article are reliable enough IMV. 1 and 2 prove that the station's licensed. 3, 4, 6 and 7 are in-depth IMV. So, I believe it meets GNG. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. DraggyWiki (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC) — DraggyWiki (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of ParillasAndrie (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Wikipedia has established processes to deal with certain procedures. These include deletion discussions and featured content. Because these processes are somewhat institutionalized, they are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. In reality, Wikipedia's policy is that each of these processes is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus.

Because the point of these processes is to form consensus, it is much better for editors to explain their reasoning, discuss civilly with other editors, and possibly compromise than it is to sign a one-word opinion. "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus.[78]

Including the Nom this is currently 3-3, however this is a clear case of Not A Headcount. We have a WP:CONLEVEL site wide RFC explicitly rejecting notability for broadcast lacking independent significant coverage, and we have ZERO sources of independent significant coverage here. We have two naked keep votes that give no indication of considering sourcing or notability criteria, and we have one blatantly bad faith keep vote frivolously claiming (3) and (7) are in-depth IMV when they contain no more than two substantially content-free sentences from a same source. They also disregard that (4) and (6) are a single source lacking independence and that (6) literally contains nothing but an empty deleted facebook notice. The sourcing has been examined in detail, and there has been no credible dispute here. If a full and careful examination of the sources carries no more weight than a naked unsupported claim "passes GNG" or "fails GNG" then there is no reason for anyone to invest the labor to examine the sources and post the analysis. We can just post naked WP:Votes. Or better yet, just let the WMF build us thumbs-up/thumbs-down buttons and let the software carry out the deletion.

Alsee (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was waiting for this to be closed, on the assumption that a closer will take all of what you said into account, and stating this would not have been necessary. But I certainly agree. It is quite obvious that on the weight of the arguments, this is a clear redirect. MB 23:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nutriskwela Community Radio. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV per the source analysis by Alsee. I would further point to this 2021 RfC which specifically outlined the need for a higher level of sourcing to prove SIGCOV for radio stations than the type of sources being used here.4meter4 (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Clear case for this outcome, station fails WP:GNG as per above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nutriskwela Community Radio per Alsee, clearly fails WP:BCAST. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per SBKSPP. Article is good to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nutriskwela Community Radio. As it is a more rational approach. Still isn't worth its own article. Ploreky^{Have a problem?}01:24, 13 October 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 List of companies of Ukraine. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of the biggest companies of Ukraine[edit]

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

Low quality article, translation of an Ukrainian article that has not been updated since 2018. No other articles link to it.

The top of the article lists supposed source, but the first two sections use different sources for the list of companies included.

Duplicates Economy of Ukraine#List of major private owned companies, not considering banks and insurance companies, in worse format, with no data explaining the list. Tracerneo (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ukraine. Madeline (part of me) 12:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The existence of sources shows this meets WP:GNG. That a list is WP:unfinished is not a reason to delete it. —Michael Z. 14:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and replace current contents with a better source. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improvements to the article could certainly be made, but it is still a perfectly legitimate topic to cover. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of companies of Ukraine. Orientls (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Dream Focus 15:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of companies of Ukraine.4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with merging it into List of companies of Ukraine. Uhai (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of companies of Ukraine per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of companies of Ukraine, this article would more accurately be titled "List of the biggest companies in Ukraine, as per this one random magazine". Clearly an unnecessary content fork from the main list article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. We need only one. FalconK (talk) 22:57, 9 October 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 Siege of Najaf (1918). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Marshall (British Army officer, born 1889)[edit]

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

Army officer killed during minor 1918 uprising in Iraq. Undoubtedly a fine and upstanding chap, he offers no notability as an historical figure. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, India, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Contributor008 (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears to have only been a captain. And an Indian Army officer, not a British Army officer. I really wish editors would learn the difference. They were entirely different armies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. In the unlikely event that this AfD results in keep, we might want to move it too. Koopinator (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: A new name of "William Marshall (British Indian Army captain)" has been proposed via this edit. — Jeff G. ツ 18:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  "British" is unnecessary, as this was the only Indian Army! It wasn't called the British Indian Army. And that's not how we title these articles in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and move to draftspace~~ Redirect/merge to Siege of Najaf (1918): Agree that this article doesn't currently meet notability standards. I'll see if I can work on it later and perhaps eventually get it back to mainspace via Articles for creation. Koopinator (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote to redirect/merge. It might make sense to create a "Leading figures" section in the Siege of Najaf (1918) article, in the vein of 2017 Wichita swatting#Parties involved or Afghan tribal revolts of 1944–1947#Leading figures. In any case I request that the article history stay intact. Koopinator (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least redirect to Siege of Najaf (1918). The subject is mentioned in some detail here for his actions and murder in Najaf in 1918. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siege of Najaf (1918), which already covers everything this article says but in greater detail. The only coverage Marshall seems to have received is in the context of that Siege and his death during it, making this a case of WP:BIO1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siege of Najaf (1918) as an alternative to deletion. A stand-alone article isn't warranted per WP:NOPAGE since any encyclopedic information about Marshall can be (and in fact already is) discussed in the siege article—the sources don't indicate that he's notable for anything else. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section for this person in Siege of Najaf (1918) article

I have written a short paragraph on this person in the Siege of Najaf (1918). Is it fine with you all if we just redirect this article there? Seems fair, as most coverage (not counting routine information in soldier lists) only talks about him in relation to the uprising.

William Macandrew Marshall (6 February 1889 – 19 March 1918^[1]) was a British Indian Army captain. He had performed military service since 1908. By 1915, during World War I, he served as the captain of the 37th Dogras regiment, serving in Mesopotamia.^[2] He fought in the Siege of Kut and partook in the conquest of Baghdad.^[1] On 1 February 1918, Marshall was stationed in Najaf, a city he would come to administer over the following weeks.^[3] William R. Marshall, British commander-in-chief of Mesopotamia, said he was popular among local inhabitants.^[4] In the morning of 19 March 1918, a number of Najafis led by Haji Najm al-Baqqal disguised as Shabanah, the British-employed Arab police, entered the citadel of Najaf where they murdered Marshall.^[5]

Koopinator (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "OLD ELIZABETHANS KILLED DURING THE GREAT WAR" (PDF).
^ "Life story: William Macandrew Marshall | Lives of the First World War". livesofthefirstworldwar.iwm.org.uk. Retrieved 2022-06-01.
^ Rutledge, Ian (2015-06-01). "Chapter 15 - Najaf 1918: First Uprising on the Euphrates". Enemy on the Euphrates: The Battle for Iraq, 1914 - 1921. Saqi. ISBN 9780863567674.
^ Moberly, James (1927). HISTORY OF THE GREAT WAR BASED ON OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. THE CAMPAIGN IN MESOPOTAMIA 1914-1918. Vol. 4. His Majesty's Stationery Office. p. 137.
^ "Reports of administration for 1918 of divisions and districts of the occupied territories in Mesopotamia. Volume I". qdl.qa. pp. 68, 69, 70.

Delete No evidence of notability. ZanciD (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabir Shakir[edit]

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

Non-notable Pakistani journalist, article sourced to YouTube/his employer. Fails WP:GNG uncontroversially. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Pakistan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the sources lack independence from the subject and his employer. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NJOURNALIST.4meter4 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 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!} 03:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Centric[edit]

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

Non-notable productions and awards. Little to no third party coverage for "Cinema Centric" or "Clean, Shiny, and New Productions". Fails WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I could find zero significant independent coverage not only on the production company itself, but on their films as well.4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added third part website write ups as well as referenced quote from film director James Merendino Lighthouse337 (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. You added facebook and imdb as sources which are not considered reliable sources per our policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. We need reliable sources as described at WP:Verifiability. Something like a review in Variety or an article in The New York Times or in a cinema journal. Not self published websites that anyone can edit like facebook and imdb. Further an interview with the director would not count as a reliable source for notability purposes because it is too closely connected to the subject of the article. (read WP:SIGCOV) We need sources that are entirely independent from Cinema Centric and the people associated with them. 4meter4 (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: Think Shorts is a submission based review site. Under its FAQ it says: "Unlike other curated short film platforms, we never reject short films. All films submitted to Think Shorts are guaranteed to be showcased on our website.".-KH-1 (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"No you didn't."?

The "third party website write ups" I was referring are on ThinkShorts.com. I'm not trying to upset anyone, I will keep adding information to the page as I find it on the internet, but if it's not meeting requirements, then please delete the page and I'll move onto a different project. Respectfully, thank you for your time. Lighthouse337 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got you. Given the low bar for submissions for ThinkShorts.com, I don't think we would consider this significant coverage under wikipedia's policies for notability. We need sources which have a higher standard of editorial oversight than what is provided by ThinkShorts.com. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 13 of the 14 footnotes come from primary sources (IMDb, the company's own self-published social networking presence) that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that comes from a third party is not from an outlet that's genuinely reliable enough to secure passage of WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH all by itself — if there was a solid mix of good sources otherwise, then it wouldn't be a problem, but it can't clinch notability all by itself if the other sourcing is all junk. As usual, the rule here is not "every company is entitled to have an article as long as it's possible to verify that it exists" — we require external validation of the company's significance to be established by third party sources writing analytical content about the company and its products, and there isn't nearly enough of that being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 9 October 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 was clearly an error by me. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tourist attractions in Jamshedpur[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST, "tourist attraction" is such a poorly defined term that there is no potential inclusion criteria for the list that doesn't include every notable building and feature in Jamshedpur, and there has been no coverage of these places as a group outside of clearly unreliable, crufty tourism websites. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Devonian Wombat: Wikipedia currently has dozens of lists of tourist attractions; how should we decide whether each of these lists are kept or deleted? Jarble (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have a large navigational page of such lists at Lists of tourist attractions. I really think your concerns over this list construct should be raised at Talk:Lists of tourist attractions instead of randomly picking one list at AFD. That said, lists of attractions are a common feature in published travel books. As such I think sourcing such lists from reliable publications would not be difficult. Look at published travel guides to India and I imagine you would find multiple such lists for the city of Jamshedpur to source this article.4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 7 October 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.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nightbitch (film)[edit]

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

Nightbitch (film)

Unreleased film that does not meet film notability or general notability. Originator moved it from draft space to article space with comment: "Filming has begun" and a source. There is a myth that a film becomes notable when principal photography begins. In fact, the film notability guideline is poorly written, and has been confusing for more than a decade, but it says that a film is not notable before filming has begun, and that an unreleased film in production is only notable if production itself satisfies general notability. There is nothing in this article that provides significant coverage of the production or release of the film. (It hasn't been released.) A review of the references shows that they are all the usual announcements made about an upcoming film, such as signing of the director and leading lady, and the distribution deal. All of the sources are primary. They are all reliable, but they are mostly reliably promotional.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	deadline.com	Announcement of film and leading lady	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	hollywoodreporter.com	Announcement of auction to produce film and of leading lady	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	hollywoodreporter.com	Announcement of production of film and of leading lady	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	variety.com	Story about personnel change at production company, passing mention of film	Yes	No	Yes	No
5	deadline.com	Announcement of distribution deal for film	No	Yes	Yes	No
6	avclub.com	Announcement of distribution deal and puff piece for film	No	Yes	Yes	No
7	variety.com	Announcement of signing of leading man	No	Yes	Yes	No
8	bloody-disgusting.com	Another announcement of signing of leading man	No	Yes	Yes	No
9	variety.com	Another announcement of distribution, director, and actress	No	Yes	Yes	No
10	worldofreel.com	Announcement of start of filming, and teaser	No	Yes	Yes	No
11	indiewire.com	Announcement of plans to release film	No	Yes	Yes	No

The article should be moved back into draft space until the film is released, and a redirect should be made to Marielle Heller. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Films get scrapped in development all the time. WP:TOOSOON applies.4meter4 (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 14:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could also redirect with history to the book page so that when coverage becomes available, it can be restored. This looks like it's really just a case of needing that last big push - which will likely end up coming about in the form of reviews. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:27, 11 October 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!} 01:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stumble Guys[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Mainly gaming blogs. CNMall41 (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The game is a significantly played game (over 225 million downloads), more than lots of other video game articles. Will be updating with more sources soon. CanO27sprite (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Already existed at Draft:Stumble Guys but was rejected twice and ignored, the creator clearly is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not advertising. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all hits are SEO type sites. This isn't for advertising your game. No media coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the creator of the draft, but it has no purpose now, since it has no significant media coverage. Sarrail (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not affiliated or associated with Stumble Guys or Kitka Games in any way. I simply want to publish an article in response to the surge in popularity of this game. This is not my game. CanO27sprite (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring legitimate issues with your draft that were clearly stated does not help your case with regards to not looking like a spammer. It is the typical modus operandi of spammers to ignore procedure and push through a clearly non-notable article, as otherwise they would not be making money through Wikipedia's free publicity (WP:SPAM). If you are here to build an encyclopedia, getting a single specific article rejected shouldn't phase you, as there are plenty of others in need of work or creation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one WP:VGRS review:

"Stumble Guys, la recensione del furbo clone di Fall Guys". Multiplayer.it (in Italian). Retrieved 2022-10-08.

I guess with that and the VGC/Dot Esports articles you could make a weak case, but its not enough to push me to vote keep. If there was one more review from a VGRS I'd think that would be enough to keep. Jumpytoo Talk 08:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.pocketgamer.biz/news/79575/scopely-acquires-stumble-guys-from-kitka-games/ Is also a WP:VGRS review CanO27sprite (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And so is https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/a-fall-guys-clone-called-stumble-guys-has-topped-the-iphone-game-charts/ CanO27sprite (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The PocketGamer source is NOT a review, it is almost entirely a press release. VGC is routine news (see WP:CORPDEPTH, which notes "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" as examples of trivial coverage) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:07, 12 October 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.

[:4-1] "OLD ELIZABETHANS KILLED DURING THE GREAT WAR" (PDF).

[2] "Life story: William Macandrew Marshall | Lives of the First World War". livesofthefirstworldwar.iwm.org.uk. Retrieved 2022-06-01.

[3] Rutledge, Ian (2015-06-01). "Chapter 15 - Najaf 1918: First Uprising on the Euphrates". Enemy on the Euphrates: The Battle for Iraq, 1914 - 1921. Saqi. ISBN 9780863567674.

[Moberly2-4] Moberly, James (1927). HISTORY OF THE GREAT WAR BASED ON OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. THE CAMPAIGN IN MESOPOTAMIA 1914-1918. Vol. 4. His Majesty's Stationery Office. p. 137.

[:12-5] "Reports of administration for 1918 of divisions and districts of the occupied territories in Mesopotamia. Volume I". qdl.qa. pp. 68, 69, 70.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]