Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 01	September 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ulmus 'Rageth'[edit]

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

When the description is "not available" and the pests and diseases section reads "no information available", you've got to ask yourself why anyone even made this article in the first place. Obvious GNG fail. Google is nothing but WP mirrors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Dictionary entries have their place but not here. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to TNT until somebody finds information. Even those infamous mass-created sportspeople stubs were provided more info than this. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of sources means article subject fails WP:V and WP:N MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have tried very hard to find sources for this varietal but I cannot find any. It's not listed in the GRIN database, nor is it listed in the NC7 annual reports for the years 1953-1955. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 11:38, 9 September 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) 23:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Jong-ran[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Korea. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPORTCRIT Bruxton (talk) 18:23, 8 September 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 23:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Un-hyang[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Korea. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:15, 5 September 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 23:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asenaca Lesivakaruakitotoiya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOLYMPICS, lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearing at the Olympics and losing her only match is not sufficient to meet any WP notability criteria. My search found her mentioned in databases but didn't show significant independent coverage. She also doesn't appear to have ever competed at a world championship event, much less done well enough to meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 16:52, 5 September 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 Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Lahij Ahmed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon. His dramatic finish of the marathon at the 1984 Olympics, cheered on by the crowd at the closing ceremony and finishing in obvious pain, did draw coverage. Not enough IMO to warrant enough for a stand-alone article. But the bit about his dramatic finish could be merged nicely into the article on the 1984 Olympic marathon. Cbl62 (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as notable only for one event per Cbl. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:03, 9 September 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!} 06:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hoffman[edit]

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

Only one of the five names matches the article's title. Redirect to Deicide (band) or? Fuddle (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 04:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It's a dab page, which is useful to the searching reader ... several similar tite matches under "See also" as well. Woodshed (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both entries meet MOS:DABMENTION and are valid entries. Potentially WP:USEFUL to the reader, ambiguous name. Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets the requirements for existing as a disambiguation page. BD2412 T 02:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jama Awil Aden[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aden competed collegiately in the US. Found some SIGCOV here. Also this, this, and a bunch more from her later days as a coach. Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG, if barely. Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Mackay[edit]

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

No indication of notability outside of passing mention in sources. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/05/finn-mackay-the-writer-hoping-to-help-end-the-gender-wars looks like a significant source, even though it's based on an interview, plus there's https://www.stephsplace.uk/book-review-female-masculinities-and-the-gender-war-by-finn-mackay.cfm (self-published?) to help warrant a pass of WP:GNG, if not WP:NAUTHOR. I also came across a couple of op eds: [1] and [2], which are obviously primary sources. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 2 September 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 11:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Lerque[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria. No significant coverage found Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 2 September 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 23:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Kuryshev[edit]

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

Another contested draftify on a non-notable semi-professional footballer that fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Soccerway has him down for 3 third tier Russian league games. Searches in Google News and DDG were unsuccessful in locating any coverage outside of database profile pages and social media. Such coverage is insufficient for SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG (for what it's worth, would also have failed under the deprecated WP:NFOOTBALL). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:14, 5 September 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Gyong-hui[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Asia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 2 September 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) 22:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Gruzdev[edit]

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

Semi-pro footballer that has played one game in the semi-pro Russian 3rd tier with no other claim to notability. Articles on sportspeople are required to have non-database sources showing significant coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC #5. A Russian Google News search yielded only a routine injury announcement from a local news outlet. Nothing better found on DGG.

Topic fails WP:GNG as well as SPORTBASIC (and would have even failed on the now deprecated WP:NFOOTBALL since Gruzdev has not yet played in an WP:FPL). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I haven't been able to locate any SIGCOV in online English or Russian language sources. Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sourcing available to demonstrate notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:32, 9 September 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!} 05:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Bagg[edit]

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

Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Notability appears limited to a few, trival references in local newspapers. (nominated by KlayCax)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Paranormal, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Shellwood's argument. There are only minor references to this person in local papers, in a "lifestyle" setting (a "Who's giving a free talk at the local library for Halloween" kind of thing). --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:48, 4 September 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 John Kirton. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G7 Research Group[edit]

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

Neither this article nor G20 Research Group appear to meet WP:ORG as all sourcing I found is tied into the University. I considered a merger to University of Toronto or the respective G group, but I believe these would be UNDUE there, as well as at John Kirton. A redirect is possible, but these are longstanding and didn't want to unilaterally BLAR so bringing here for larger discussion. Star Mississippi 19:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Companies, Education, and Canada. Star Mississippi 19:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Redirect to John Kirton: I did not find any SIGCOV either, but I would not be opposed to merging a sentence or two into John Kirton. Kirton's article needs some cleanup itself, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. HouseBlaster^talk 01:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My above !vote was referring to G7, but I have just looked into G20. I support redirecting both to John Kirton, for the same reasons. Neither appear notable, and I am very much convinced by nom's UNDUE argument. A redirect (with the possible merger of a tiny amount of content) seems like the best way forward. House Blaster^talk 01:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Are you advocating redirecting both nominated article to this target page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to John Kirton as the articles are not serviceable in their current state, with others finding it hard to find independent and reliable sourcing and the articles proper coming off as promotional in tone to me. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to John Kirton As stated above, all of the sources tie back to the University, I'm unconvinced that independent sourcing that meets NCORP exists. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:37, 9 September 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. Sandstein 08:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Cook[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Nothing in depth in major databases. No worthwhile redirect targets. PROD'd with two additional endorsements several months ago and yet no major sources beyond trivial detail have been forthcoming since. czar 17:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. czar 17:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scattered hits in GNewspapers as a superintendant for schools, routine stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article and added sourcing. He's not a major anarchist figure, but he had an impact and gets mentioned repeatedly. He does not seem to have been an attorney or a superintendent of schools at all.--Jahaza (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What three sources in that expansion are you considering significant source coverage? I'm not seeing the depth. czar 01:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a fair amount on him in Rebel Life: The Life and Times of Robert Gosden, Revolutionary, Mystic, Labour Spy, pp. 35–37 ISBN 155420058X. This includes his involvement with companies promoting quack cures for syphilis which the author links to his anarchist views in a roundabout way. There is a short bio of him in this book pp. 515-516 along with several mentions including naming him as the central figure in the defence of Emma Goldman. This book mentions his Cook Remedy Company manufactured syphelene as well as passing mentions to his anarchist activities. I would be ok with a merge but I'm not seeing a suitable target. SpinningSpark 06:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed on the talk page, Rebel Life is an assortment of trivia about Cook's dealings that we wouldn't cite in the article.

The "short bio" is three whole sentences on p. 515 (nothing on 516) as part of Goldman's archivist introducing dozens of names that appear in passing throughout this exhaustive three-volume documentary on Goldman's life (thousands of pages). Cook is not noteworthy in this context and it certainly is not enough on which to base an encyclopedia article.

The other sources either are passing mentions or have no depth.

His quackery wouldn't have a merge target because it isn't noteworthy enough to be included anywhere, and his relationship with Goldman is not even noteworthy enough to mention in her article. He played a supporting role in the anarchist community. So what exactly is he notable for? czar 13:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a search shows up what I feel to be sufficient material to sustain the article. I do feel the article needs to be reworked and the sources need to be reviewed so that if there are better ones they can be substituted or added. --Canyouhearmenow 12:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Illinois, and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a response to my review of the sources above. I don't see how we could write an article that does justice to the topic given the paucity of coverage of what is would be his primary reason for notability: his anarchist activism, which has only passing mentions in sources. czar 04:14, 1 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!} 21:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see how GNG-compliant coverage needs to cover his anarchist activism ASAP. To me, bringing up "his primary reason for notability" pertains to A7, not GNG. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Rastegar[edit]

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

Non-notable realtor and lawyer; the "world's tallest living wall" to be built in Dallas in 2020 never happened. I can only find 5 hits about the subject of this BLP and they all are vanity articles for local businessmen. FeralOink (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FeralOink (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, but WP:BASIC is met with Austin Monthly [3] and D Magazine [4]. Outside of it, my searches (beyond a lot of passing mentions and/or interviews) found some not as good coverage in Bizjournals [5] (the original article is paywalled). He was featured on CBS News [6], though I'm iffy on using it for notability purposes. While I don't think this person is notable whatsoever, he seems to have attracted some attention and we can't ignore our guidelines. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage of the "biohacker" aspect seems to meet the WP:NBIO threshold here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination, fails WP:SIGCOV. Shaniquagreen (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The D Magazine articles look like vanity pieces, so I'd be hesitant to use them. Just barely over GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a bit surprised nobody has mentioned this article was created and curated by disclosed paid editor User:MaryGaulke. The draft lingered at AfC rejected twice as overly promotional until passed by admin User:Missvain in mid-July. I am allowed to dislike that a self-promoter has managed to have an article about themselves created; I can dislike that the linked sources are mostly puffy local coverage. I can't fault AfC reviewer Missvain for passing this draft given the applied and found material. IMHO this subject appears to pass GNG and the article possesses sufficient significant reliable sources which clearly directly detail. As many self-promoting BLP subjects have discovered, having a Wikipedia article about ones' self may not work out in their favor. The BLP risk to the subject is now mostly in the subject's court. If the subject gets into some future scandal, such negative material is now hard to scrub. This is what they signed up for when they commissioned an article about themselves. BusterD (talk) 08:06, 3 September 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 02:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Attachment Unit Interface[edit]

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

I've prodded this a year ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by a user with a bizarre comment "Give a reason when you add a PROD", and who also did not ping me back, despite my request (in the PROD) for such a ping. Shrug. The article hasn't improved in trhe year+ since, still sports just one reference and is pretty much a WP:OR essay on a minor piece of technology with no apparent notability (GScholar returns just 14 results, all in passing). Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Low quality article in its current state but the association with Apple puts it a hair above the notability bar IMHO.

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barnards.tar.gz WP:NOTINHERITED cares to disagree. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could rephrase. The high notability of Apple makes it seem likely that better sources will be uncovered eventually. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barnards.tar.gz I hope you won't mind me directing you now to WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are right, it's a bad argument.

However, it didn't take me long to uncover a couple of additional sources that include some details about the AAUI:

Larry Hanson - 1993 - Everything you wanted to know about the Mac - ISBN: 1568300581 - archive.org
Networking Explained, 2nd edition - ISBN: 9780080512594 - O'Reilly

Both are paragraph-level coverage rather than in-depth, but still nontrivial and not just in passing.

A source for the pinout information is here, with the primary source being Apple's site (after tracing through a few broken archive.org links).

In terms of commentary, the AAUI was featured in a page 1 article of InfoWorld Vol 13 Issue 1, 1991 (albeit on the page 8 continuation of the article). What's particularly interesting about this somewhat critical coverage is that it underlines Apple's longstanding practice of using proprietary technology instead of industry standards, but from an early-90s viewpoint rather than the more modern examples we are used to.

I guess this all leads me to seeing WP:POTENTIAL.

Also for consideration: the article has a dozen or so incoming links which would turn red if it were to be deleted.

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barnards.tar.gz Thank you for the sources. I am unsure if that's enough, but that's more than we had. Any chance you could remove unreferenced content in the article, see what can be referenced/added, and then we could consider whether this can stand as a stand-alone article, or perhaps be redirected? The problem is that right now we still have an OR-ish, de facto unreferenced essay visible to the readers, and the soruces you found are somewhat borderline. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shall try at some point, but I am out of time for the next couple of weeks. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barnards.tar.gz There is the option of draftifying this in your userpace instead of regular deletion/keeping. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, please see WP:NOTCLEANUP ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng But given current state of article, I'll counter with WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, I would say you're moving the goal posts. Your stated rationale for deletion was a notability concern. Someone finds some sources and now you say the article is crap. We can fault the article for not being well sourced but Barnards.tar.gz has identified some sources and now we just need to apply them. This is not remotely a WP:TNT situation. ~Kvng (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, hard deleting at this point is not ideal, I agree. The solution of cutting this down to bare minimum (def) and expanding from sources found if someone wants would address the OR essay concerns. If enough editors think this should be kept, well, fine. I don't think the notability is obvious from the sources found, but neither is the lack of it as glaring as it was before. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Barnards.tar.gz. What about TNT to stub-like state with basic sourcing? I may work on the article in the future, but my wiki to-do list is full at this moment. Pavlor (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pavlor That would be a good solution. Would you have time & will to carry such a fix? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Quick and dirty (I really don't have time for anything more, right now). Pavlor (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mostly undid that. WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing against that (it was a bold edit anyone can revert, or semi-revert as in this case). On a side note, I found another source concerning the article subject: Macworld May 1992 pp. 152-153 (broader article about networking, cca 1/3 page about AAUI)
Delete - Notability is dubious and it appears that one editor here is actively preventing fixing the issues present. Blow this up per TNT and let someone rewrite this in the future. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not preventing the article from being fixed. I just don't see justification for WP:STUBIFY or WP:TNT. Sources have been identified, they just need to be applied to the article. This article is on my watchlist now and I'm happy to help with the fixes but not under the threat of deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Attachment Unit Interface. This implementation is likely not notable, but the broader topic may be. Sandstein 12:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 2 September 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. and suggest a history merge with the other draft if this is the one that's ultimately improved Star Mississippi 02:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speda TV[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The sources provided are either from the outlet itself, ROUTINE listing, or brief mentions. I'm concerned, also, that this was made in main namespace to circumvent an already-declined draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iraq. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Chris troutman I have published an article about one of the most important Kurdish channels in Iraq, as it has strong sources talking about this channel and I linked it with the article, as well as it has many internal sources within Wikipedia related to the article:

and mentions the extent of its importance in Iraqi society in particular In the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and a while ago with a group of other editors, we modified and corrected the errors that were present in the article.

Therefore, I ask you not to delete this article because it represents a large media organization in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and I ask you to forgive us for the errors that may be in the article because I am a new member of Wikipedia. Thank you very much.

Mr-MohammedAzeez (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify / merge to the draft. Andre🚐 18:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. For those advocating draftify, there is an existing draft. Should it be replaced by this version or should the main space copy be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The mainspace copy is not the same as the draft; it is better with more sources. I would recommend that the article be moved instead deleted. The draft is at a slightly different name (Tv instead of TV), so they can both exist, keeping all the history of both until either is improved enough to be moved back to mainspace. MB 14:10, 8 September 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 12:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Guigon[edit]

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

Before search doesn't bring up any third party sources to establish notability. Non-notable ski mountaineer that doesn't meet WP:GNG SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 14:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 2 September 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 Toboggan (roller coaster). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toboggan (Hersheypark)[edit]

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

Unfortunately, the pair of Toboggan roller coasters do not seem to pass WP:GNG. Having looked through Newspapers.com, I only found passing mentions alongside other Hersheypark attractions. A general search on the internet also does not provide much in the way of significant coverage. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Pennsylvania. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't have access to the book and there may be significant coverage there. That being said the other three sources are from the park itself and a merge to Toboggan (roller coaster) would improve that article. NemesisAT (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Toboggan (roller coaster) and/or List of former Hersheypark attractions. I also conducted a source search last month in trying to salvage the article. Unfortunately, very little has been published about this ride; I also looked on newspapers.com and ProQuest but didn't find anything significant. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to improve the main Toboggan article. The image would be nice to have over there. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:59, 9 September 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) 20:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semen Finashin[edit]

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

Article was sent to draft space with the comment Badly sourced BLP, not yet passing WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Article was then superficially edited and submitted and then declined by User:Greenman following a comment from User:Robert McClenon. This would have even failed under the old WP:NFOOTBALL as he has never played in an WP:FPL.

Subject has played 10 minutes of football in the semi-pro Russian third tier. In a Russian Google News search, we have totally trivial mentions and one semi-decent local source in Vologda.rf. A close examination of that source, though, shows that it's nothing more than a quote from Finashin and saying that he scored a goal three minutes before the end. Nothing better found in DDG. Fails WP:GNG and SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy general notability. As noted by nominator, did not satisfy old football notability guideline either. Reviewer was correct that it was not ready for article space, and originator has moved it back into article space, and it is still not ready for article space. Sometimes an originator should take the advice of the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 11:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:14, 5 September 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 Intel 8051. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C8051[edit]

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

This particular microcontroller is not independently notable, and I cannot find any independent coverage of it. Article is written like a brochure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (no merge) to Intel 8051. No evidence of independent notability but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per David Eppstein. Pavlor (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Intel 8051. Article is a product brochure mess and full of promotional links. It probably could be independently notable (e.g. [7][8][9]), however splitting off from the compatible 8051 should be done with content that isn't like a product brochure. --Mvqr (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Douglas[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search turns up a single highly WP:ROUTINE announcement in Formula Scout and otherwise only returns mentions in race results. At the very least this article about a random teenager competing in what is at best a fourth-tier series has been created far WP:TOOSOON. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and New Zealand. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — yet another article on an underage driver racing in the Road to Indy equivalent of Formula 4. Complete lack of non-routine independent coverage, fails WP:GNG. MSport1005 (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synergon[edit]

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

Article has no major media articles, and I can’t find any sources other than a few primary ones on the company’s Web page and LinkedIn, and one article by an obscure website. The article is written like an advertisement, but I couldn’t find enough 3rd party information about the company to write a neutral article, and if I removed the non-encyclopedic text, it would make the article a stub.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cyberbot I, Thank you for transcluding my AfD to the log, looks like I forgot. Rookie mistake! Arxion (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's an article in Lerums Tidning from 2009, "Gör affärer av forskning", 600 words focused on Marianne Möllstam (one of the founders) and her work with Synergon, when she was nominated to "Beautiful Business Award 2009". There's also a very short piece about it in Göteborgs-Posten from the same year, "Lerumskvinna har chans att bli årets företagare". Beyond that, I can only find passing mentions. /Julle (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources in the article and insufficient coverage to make significant improvements with respect to SIGCOV. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as no one has been able to find reasonable sources. /Julle (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferocious Bloodaxe[edit]

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

Student project, "minor cult hit" as noted in article. Created by person connected with the films, and conflict of interest shows in the promotional tone throughout. Can't find anything about it online, apart from their blog last updated in 2013. No sign of this meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Storchy (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Scotland. Storchy (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable amateur comedy group and films. The only real claim to notability in the article that attempts to have a source backing it up is that it was nominated for (but didn't win) a non-notable award, and the source being used for that claim is a Facebook page. Absolutely no sources appear to exist that have any coverage of them. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability standards. Coldupnorth (talk) 11:41, 7 September 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. It looks like sources exist but are difficult to obtain to improve this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uuno Turhapuron aviokriisi[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. PROD was removed with rationale "Subject is notable. Kansallisfilmografia, cited in Elonet, cites several reviews in major newspapers. The Kansallisfilmografia entry itself could be considered an example of WP:NFO #2."

However, I am not convinced that one entry in a database book about films makes this notable. Other citation is an online database. Nothing else found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Finland. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Copying my comment from the article talk page: Due to the age of the film, online sourcing is difficult: it's too new for the reviews to be in the online-accessible version of the National Archives of Finland newspaper archive, but too old for them to be be available on newspaper websites. In any case, some potential (review) sourcing based on the Elonet entry [10] include:

Ilta-Sanomat 23.10.1981
Aamulehti 21.10.1981
Turun Sanomat 20.10.1981, 29.5.1993, 3.4.1999
Katso 49/1981
Kansan Uutiset 25.10.1981

The above are cited by Elonet to Suomen kansallisfilmografia 9 (2000). -Ljleppan (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Ljleppan. /Julle (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I trust Ljleppan's efforts to prove that significant coverage exists but takes effort to read. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:33, 9 September 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. Whether this is a hoax, or merely a good faith misunderstanding, consensus to delete is clear. BD2412 T 22:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Microtown[edit]

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

I do see the word "microtown" used, but in passing as something that needs no explanation and which hardly means something as specific as this. I could find no justification for the 500 population cutoff, and frankly if I were setting such a standard it would be at least an order of magnitude lower. At any rate, it's basically an unsourced, bloated, and dubious WP:DICTDEF which needs to go away. Mangoe (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seemingly made-up neologism; most search results are for a video game of the same name. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:MADEUP hoax concept, I can't find any sources either. Reywas92^Talk 17:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment If this be considered a hoax, it would take over as the oldest know thus far. Mangoe (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either a hoax or exclusively original research, but neither of those should have their own article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:11, 9 September 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!} 06:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historic value[edit]

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

This is a WP:DICTDEF. While the term is certainly used a lot, I believe it fails WP:GNG (there is no "significant coverage" of this term, it is just a common expression). A redirect and perhaps even a merge of this single (but referenced) sentence to Significant coverage is the best I can think in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this could be improved with sources like this and this. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia Hmmm, not bad but I've also seen such promising sources (on surface) fail to provide WP:SIGCOV of the topic. Would you mind taking a stab and trying to expand the article with said sources, to move beyong WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The importance of a building or artefact has to be assessed to determine how important its preservation is. There must be some academic literature discussing this in detail, which ought to be described (not merely cited) in this article, but at present it is not there, We merely have a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is more than a dictionary definition here, and scope to improve. "We merely have a stub" is not a reason to delete. Thparkth (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for little other reason than I just helped improve the article, and it "feels" like it could be expanded with intellectual rigor, far beyond a dictionary entry. Here Under The Oaks (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went back and forth on this article, I can see why Piotrus nominated it. I do think we can find RS to support and expand this article per WP:NEXIST. See A Catalogue of the Portraits and Other Objects of Historic Value from January 1, 1907. I looked for a logical spot to redirect and could not find one. So it is likely best that we have an article. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Salariya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG PravinGanechari (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one lead role in a television series and no other significant role. DareshMohan (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 2 September 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 Chuck (TV series)#Series summary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buy More[edit]

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

This is a difficult name to search, but the topic seems to fail WP:GNG. Article is entirely in-universe plot summary. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Companies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in Chuck which is really what this article is about, and which requires a bit of internal organization. character lists of well notable tv series are usually fine as standalone as long as some attempt to address character notability is made. --Masem (t) 14:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chuck (TV series)#Series summary as pure plotcruft. I would not redirect it to the character list, as that is also plotcruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chuck (TV series)#Series summary. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suitable for redirect to Chuck (TV series)#Series summary. Agree with nom: Article is entirely in-universe plot summary and fails GNG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Content seems to be bloated and much of the content is much better split off into whatever pages actually concern that content. Literally the article has very little to do with the actual chain itself and should probably be rewritten before it ever becomes its own separate article again. I think at best WP:TNT applies in this case, but if not, a redirect is perfectly fine.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:38, 6 September 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. Rough consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rayan Ragab[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: there are sources about, such as [11], [12], [13], [14]. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these appear to meet GNG. The first is a trivial mention, the last consists of quotes therefore not independent, the third contains a remark about social media posts; overall nothing significant. Avilich (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was an article which quotes from the subject non-independent? Giant Snowman 19:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last article has significant non-quote content as well Carson Wentz (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last article has significant non-quote content that doesn't discuss her at all. The only place she is mentioned is in a quote at the end. Obviously that is not SIGCOV of her. JoelleJay (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of the sources provided by Nehme above, this seems to be the only decent one. The others each just give a sentence or so of coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Nehme1499:. She is clearly significant figure in Sudanese women's and international football. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by User:Nehme1499, particularly the second and fourth, provide sufficient content to pass GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per User:Nehme1499Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Re the sources above; [1] is a reaction quote, [2] is the same, [3] appears to be an op-ed, [4] is a one-line quote. The sources in the article currently (including Facebook and Twitter) are not encouraging either. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON; fails WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources provided in this AfD mostly do not qualify as significant coverage. WP:TOOSOON and fails BASIC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Indy Beetle that the sources offered above are not sufficient coverage. The first has one independent sentence on her, the second has zero full independent sentences on her, the third is an unusable op-ed that mentions some activism in social media, and the fourth also has no coverage of her (just a quote). So combined we have...one sentence in RS discussing her independently and directly. Not even remotely close to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the sources do not provide significant and sufficient coverage. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of multiple in-depth high quality sources with which to write an article. Fails GNG. Others have commented on the sources put forward by Nehme, these are not suitable though a couple may be useful if put forward to an article on women's football in Sudan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pammi Sai[edit]

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

Bit part actor who doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. No significant role in any film they appeared in. Does not meet WP:GNG either due to lack of independent reliable sources.

Nothing significant found in WP:BEFORE search in both English and Telugu. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Ab207 (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207,

he is an Telugu movies comedian. Though in Bheemla Nayak movie, The film stars Pawan Kalyan and Rana Daggubati were in lead roles, Pammi Sai also played a significant role. That's mentioned on Business Today (India). He is also a famous comedian. That can be found in Telugu TV channels as well. So the article should be existed as I think.~ AbuSayeed (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207, If he has no any significant role, how there's an IMDb page with his name. Currently he has been featured in latest TV episode of reputed channel ETV in Telugu.

Besides his name and fame in Telugu, Sai is also entertaining in Tamil [15].~ AbuSayeed (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Go to guy for one scene cameos" doesn't seem notable. If he has a important role in Vaathi/Sir, then he will need more such roles to be notable. Also doubtful is how did you know what roles he played in other films, is it copied from IMDB? DareshMohan (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan @Ab207 Hey Guys, I am an ardent fan of Trivikram Srinivas and hence decided to write an article on Pammi Sai as he was featured in almost of all of Trivikram's movies right from Athadu. Moreover, he is playing significant roles in Telugu Movies from last few years. He has more than 15 mins dedicated runtime in Varudu Kaavalenu (2021) for his comedy track and got great accolades as its on similar lines of Jandhyala Comedy. It's not a joke to have over 10 mins of runtime in Power Star Pawan Kalyan's Movie, but he had such a significant role in Bheemla Nayak where there was a face off between him and Rana Daggubati at Police Station. That's not it, he is all along Rao Ramesh as his associate and he brings in the crucial conflict in Samantha Ruth Prabhu, Nithiin starrer A Aa movie. The list goes on and on and I am surprised many junior artists are having a wikipedia page but not a page on him despite being featured in many roles which are being used as memes in Telugu Social Media Pages. Recently he is acting along side Dhanush in a bi-lingual film Vaathi and I have already indexed the website article as citation. Also he has an IMDB page and will also be seen in this week's Suma Kanakala's Cash Episode in ETV (Telugu). If you want I'll link the episode Promo which is on You Tube.

Just because @DareshMohan is not aware of him, it doesn't mean his filmography is doubtful or he didn't had any significant roles. I will share the timestamps in the movies where he is in, you can watch in OTT. No personal abuses please. Azure.Yash (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well if that is the case, at least improve the sources in the article. I will try to find some. DareshMohan (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan Hey buddy, Here's the ETV Telugu Cash Promo [16] that I was referring to in my earlier reply. So, do you think a prestigious channel like ETV will bring on some random guy to their show? And yeah, thanks for chipping in to improve the article. Cheers! Azure.Yash (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say all ETV does is to bring C-list celebs on their shows who don't merit Wikipedia articles. So let's not make any assumptions without actual reliable sources like newspapers, magazines etc. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207 I understand about the C-list/influencers you are referring, who are part of other drama shows. But the context of this [17] is entirely different as it has hero, heroine and character artists on this episode to represent their movie. I have added few other reference links from TeluguFilmNagar, Zee Cinemalu [Owned by Zee Telugu] Gulte, Tupaki which are authentic in Telugu regional media. I'll look into news paper articles and will index them. Azure.Yash (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly....This is what I meant to say. For example, the article of Nirupam Paritala of Karthika Deepam was also deleted many times, as there are not many reliable sources mentioning his work. Gulte and Tupaki are not considered reliable under wikipedia guidelines, try to understand. Ab207 this is surely a waste of time discussing such deletions when the article clearly does not clearly meet the criteria....Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 5:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jayanthkumar123 I don't know if you misread it or something, I told you am a fan of Trivikram and not the one we are discussing about. It's just that he appear in all Trivikram films. And I didn't get your point of not even a single reliable one? He has been credited in Indian Express [18] as part of Bheemla Nayak cast and Bhaamakalapam (film) cast[19]. I have added TV Serial videos which have been telecasted in Star Maa & Zee Telugu. Also there is a recent article in renowned website about him playing an important role in Dhanush's bilingual Vaathi aka Sir [20]. I am not sure if you are into Telugu Movies, You will get to know that these quoted references are from authentic telugu media websites. So, I thought why can't we create a person who acted in more than 35-40 films (few significant/praise worthy roles) a dedicated article and created it but its not out of fanism or something. Azure.Yash (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you are not aware of the basic criteria to create an article about a person, I have mentioned them. I haven't misread or something and I completely understand your point. The point here is not to give credits along with another cast, the person should have a separate dedicated article solely about his/her work. If not the entire article at least a major part of the article should be about his work. If giving credit the main reason, then there are thousands of articles where they mention every actor who has worked in the film. Also, appearing in TV serials is a weak reason. In that case, there are many Telugu TV actors who don't have articles, because they don't have significant media coverage (here coverage indicates independent reliable sources)....Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 5:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The actor might do significant roles, but as per the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, the sources must be independently reliable ones. In this case, there is not even a single reliable one. Every actor cannot have an article until and unless he has significant or minimum coverage by independent reliable sources. Azure.Yash just because you are fan of somebody, you cannot create an article unless you pass the above-mentioned criteria...Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 4:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Soft[edit]

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

Created by a SPA. Not falling even short of WP:NCORP Oliver Virk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G11. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elecard[edit]

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

Blatant promo. Resembles more the company's website than a Wikipedia page. Notability per WP:NCORP is problematic Oliver Virk (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about the best source I can find [21], brief mention. Likely won't find much more for a Russian company, given the recent kerfuffle in Ukraine. Delete for lack of sources. Article here looks more like a sales brochure than anything. Oaktree b (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've also tagged for G11, for which it seems to me eligible. A worrying number of the contributors this article have made a few edits to this page and one or two related ones and nothing else. GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G11. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telesystems (company)[edit]

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

Highly promotional; not meeting WP:RS and WP:NCORP. Oliver Virk (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Also tagged for G11. GoldenRing (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this the same Telesystems that was "(formerly listed on the NYSE as MBT)" per Bezinga? If it is then it is likely notable per Wikipedia:LISTED. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G11. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrueConf[edit]

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

Higly promotional, without relialbe sources. The page resembles company's portfolio or brochure Oliver Virk (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of significance. Waggers TALK 12:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11. I've tagged it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:12, 2 September 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) 10:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okko (streaming service)[edit]

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

Not notable; no sources; possible cross-wiki spam Oliver Virk (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of significance. Waggers TALK 12:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy I don't think this is A7 (they claim global distribution) but G11. GoldenRing (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per the above. I actually think either of these criteria are appropriate. Appears to be advertising a service with no credible claim of significance. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:03, 9 September 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!} 08:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frederik Lund[edit]

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

Random child. WP:BEFORE search brings up an interview in Formula Scout and not much else that isn't just WP:ROUTINE coverage of events that this kid happens to have participated in, although the search was complicated by the fact that there appears to be a fashion model or designer of the same name who gets more coverage. Seems to me like another database-entry-type article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, Denmark, and Nicaragua. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any notability within the sources and achievements. --多少战场龙 (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find another source , an article about him in KartXpress which is part of RaceXpress which is a good source on the topic of racing. However it is reporting on the same event as the source found by HoomanBuddy. It may be Wikipedia:Too soon, and does not seem to have significant coverage enough as of now based on what we were able to find. His achievements do not include any top 8 in national or international competitions of his respective sport.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Generally per nom and Pickle. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sound nomination of HumanBodyPiloter5. Same case as a lot of Formula 4/FRECA drivers (far from meeting any criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT) that are created around, fails WP:GNG with WP:ROUTINE coverages or quotations (non-independent content). There are more drivers that should be looked around, such as Arias Deukmedjian, Marcos Flack, Pietro Delli Guanti, Francesco Braschi, Santiago Ramos (racing driver), Nicolás Baptiste, Cenyu Han and others filled with similar things. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:18, 3 September 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. Confusing readers into thinking the pipeline is still planned is not a valid deletion rationale. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samsun–Ceyhan pipeline[edit]

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

Might confuse readers into thinking this pipeline is still planned Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have added maintenance tag to the article to address your concern. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - well-sourced article that merely needs to be updated. No valid reason for deletion has been proposed. Thparkth (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely anyone will update it - why bother when it is easier to delete it - who would want to read such an article? Reason for deletion is that it wastes the reader's time. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no valid, policy-based reason for deletion has been given. The problem exposed in the nom's deletion rationale is very much WP:SURMOUNTABLE. BilletsMauves^€500 10:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I ask Google "oil pipelines in Turkey" top of the list is "Category:Oil pipelines in Turkey - Wikipedia" with some pipelines listed including this one. Obviously that is wrong and wastes people's time having to click through and find out that it is not an oil pipeline in Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A project being cancelled is not in itself a reason to delete the article on the project if it is otherwise suitable for an article (there's a reason Category:Cancelled projects isn't empty). That being said, is there perhaps some other place on Wikipedia (presumably with a broader scope) where it would be better to cover this per WP:NOPAGE? In that case, a merge or redirect might be reasonable. TompaDompa (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I noticed this article because I am currently working on bringing Oil and gas in Turkey up to good standard. If this article is deleted I could add a sentence to that one something like "An oil pipeline from a port on the Black Sea such as Ünye was proposed in the 2000s as a Bosphoros bypass, but was cancelled in 2010. As of 2022 Kanal Istanbul is proposed as a Bosphoros bypass." Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Seyhan668: Did this article confuse you? If not please could you explain how Russian oil gets to Ceyhan. I cannot understand why you wrote in Ceyhan that "Ceyhan is the transportation hub for ... Russian oil". I need to know as I am currently working on bringing Oil and gas in Turkey up to good standard. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 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} 08:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Drury (theologian)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated. Fails WP:NPROF. Refs are passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 08:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Drury's 1994 Article "The Holiness Movement is Dead" in Holiness Digest 8, no. 1, Winter 1994, and his 1995 speech to the Christian Holiness Partnership[22] were apparently the topic of a book: Keith Drury; Richard S. Taylor; Kenneth J. Collins; Wallace Thornton, Jr.; Larry D. Smith. Counterpoint: Dialogue with Drury on The Holiness Movement (2005). Schmul Publishing Company, Salem, OH. ISBN 0-88019-495-2. He's also anthologized in this anthology of Holiness figures, where the reviewer describes him as "well known"[23]--Jahaza (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being described as well known, isn't any kind of reference as its a passing mention. I'll take a look at the other. scope_creep^Talk 10:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The book was written in collaboration with Drury. Its possible he might pass WP:NAUTHOR but I don't see any reviews of the books that would make that so. They're is very little other coverage. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His book Holiness for ordinary people is theologically significant in the Welseyan Holiness Movement (12 editions, cf. [24]), numerous quotations, cf. [25]) ---Telikalive (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for these in WP:NAUTHOR. Is there any reviews of these books that will show he passes that notability policy? Blindly stating keep without evidence doesn't prove he is notable and won't lead to keep. Where is the evidence? scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Reverting comments in discussions is extremely poor form. Please don't do it again - but you've been here long enough that you should know that by now. The URL is not malformed - though you will need to be logged in to the Wikipedia Library to see it. Here it is again: [26]. The review is Snyder (2014), Wesleyan and Methodist Studies, vol 6, pp 206-208, Penn State University Press, 2014. And yes, I've been here long enough I should know to sign my comments. GoldenRing (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative JSTOR link for the same article: [27] GoldenRing (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep - former head of a significant religious denomination, author of books that I suspect are notable, well-cited scholar, award recipient in his field. This article just needs some editing love, not deletion. Thparkth (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't think he was the head of the Wesleyan Church, just an official. Jahaza (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above, a Google Scholar search seems to substantiate and go beyond what's listed in this AfD. Obviously needs to be expanded, not deleted. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- The heads of major denominations, particularly long-standing ones, like bishops, are notable without more. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Boyce (field hockey)[edit]

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

Article cites no sources and a search for sources has revealed only database entries and a passing mention in an article about a game he was in, so I doubt that he meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per GoldenRing - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This seems to meet WP:NSPORT's "success in a major international competition at the highest level". It's not that surprising for a sports-person whose career peaked in 2006 to not have a lot of online sources to support notability. GoldenRing (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Malet[edit]

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

I don't believe it meets WP:BASIC and no indication of notability from the sources provided. Also seems quite promotional to me, as well. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and United States of America. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've noticed that the article was deleted through PROD, however was restored through a request.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the sources presented, all of them are either incidental mentions or non-RS. GoldenRing (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No obvious notability. Thparkth (talk) 16:43, 2 September 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 Malaysian United Democratic Alliance. Redirecting as ATD. Please renominate if this redirect gets turned back into an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hariri Abd Hadi[edit]

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

Promo piece (possible autobio) on a non-notable political figure. Sources listed (though not actually cited) provide only the briefest of passing mentions, and a search finds nothing better, therefore fails WP:GNG. Not an elected position, hence fails WP:NPOL also. Declined at AfC but creator moved it to main space anyway, so here we are. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Malaysia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional profile with no solid claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found, possibly more in a local language though. Oaktree b (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malaysian_United_Democratic_Alliance. No obvious claim to notability in his own right. Thparkth (talk) 16:46, 2 September 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!} 06:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saigon Hotpot[edit]

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

A non-notable student organization lacking significant coverage. Fails WP:NORG. It also reads a bit like an advertisement. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 12:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very poorly sourced, promotional. An online search finds none of the in-depth coverage needed to show this student organisation meets relevant Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:41, 2 September 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 04:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Justin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NATHLETE and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:00, 2 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walter H. Waddell[edit]

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

Subject does not meet our notability requirements. A Google News search turns up 4 hits, none having to do with him, and a Google Search turns up the one non-ntotable award he won from the rubber industry mentioned here and nothing else that could be used. We need at least 2 published reliable independent verifiable sources for an article, and it looks like Mr. Waddell has only one. A loose necktie (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, was unable to find any material to support notability online. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough RS coverage or other legitimate support for inclusion. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several new cites from various sources: ACS, Rubber and Plastics News, CRC Press, etc. Both the Sparks Thomas and Mooney Awards are well known and covered by industry press when given.AresLiam (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have sufficient coverage as academic and author. Andre🚐 09:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two recognized industry awards would seem to indicate notability. 128.252.79.225 (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Long[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Is well referenced but the subject of the article has not won or been nominated for a major award, has not played a major role in creating a notable work. Executive producer is not the same as a director or producer. This is the second time this article is being nominated for deletion. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails wp:NACTOR, multiple sources in the article contain minimal mentions of him, apparently fails wp:SIGCOV and wp:GNG as well. Nythar^T^.^C 01:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible again for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps too soon. - his projects may have been notable, but I do not find in depth coverage of him. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 2 September 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 Pannonia Film Studio. ✗plicit 00:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willy the Sparrow[edit]

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

Fails NFILM. No SIGCOV. No reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Passing mentions here and there on random blogs, but no RS. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have also been unable to find any real coverage or reviews on the film, and I am unconvinced that the award the article mentions would count as a "major award" per WP:NFILM. Though, being a pre-internet film made in Hungary, there may be some print or non-English sources that someone else may have some luck with finding during the course of this AFD. As it stands currently, though, I would suggest Redirecting to either Pannonia Film Studio, the studio that produced it, or József Gémes, the writer/director, both of which list the film on their respective articles. Rorshacma (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a pretty good source https://doi.org/10.1556/044.2021.00159 which talks about the film presumably as one of "eleven Hungarian animation films and four TV shows from the Soviet-era to discover how Hungarian animation in this period utilized folktales to criticize the government". Quite interesting from the abstract, but I don't have access to the article. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to Pannonia Film Studio. The current refs aren't enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, the award festival has an article but it only placed 3rd place, so it might be notable, but IMHO it doesn't meet a major award, though this is debatable. IMHO, WP:ATD makes a redirect sensible, there's no point in merging most of the article, which is just plot and character lists, at best we could have a 1-sentence mention of the award. Ping me if there are more refs, and I'd change my vote to a merge if so. VickKiang (talk) 03:33, 2 September 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.