Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 01 April 03 >

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 00:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Norell[edit]

Paul Norell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No apparent WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NACTOR as his only significant role appears to be a minor supporting character in a Lord of the Rings movie. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Scowcroft[edit]

Joe Scowcroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. There is not enough coverage of this person to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Player is recorded and noted about in multiple books, All About... Bolton Wanderers ISBN(unknown), Bolton Wanderers : the Complete Record 1877-2011 ISBN:978-1780913810. Already some other sources on the article. There are some other sources around to use. Govvy (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What and how much do those sources say about him? JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find the subject in either of the above, can you provide a page number for WP:V?  // Timothy :: talk  01:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Gopvvy. Definelty additional offline eousrces as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Das osmnezz:, Since you state there definitely are offline sources, can you provide some examples? Or is this just an opinion?  // Timothy :: talk  00:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's four that have already been provided. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm apparently not seeing what your seeing. Can you copy and paste the four refs with enough info to check WP:V? Or at least a diff showing enough information for WP:V.  // Timothy :: talk  01:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications that any of the sources in the article are significant. On the contrary, the part involving Scowcroft in the The Origins of the Football League is mentioned being from a match report. Alvaldi (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The Complete Records ref is a primary source, having been written by club Secretary Simon Marland. The All About source is not found in any search. That's the 2 sources mentioned. Neither of which go to notability.Onel5969 TT me 01:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know how to count. I was referring to the two also in the article: The Origins of the Football League and Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have no evidence that any of the mentioned offline sources actually provide SIGCOV, and online searches have not yielded anything either. JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article appears to fail WP:GNG. A Google Book preview of The Origins of the Football League: The First Season 1888/89 shows that Scowcroft is only mentioned in match reports. I can't find a preview of Bolton Wanderers: The Complete Record, but it appears to be a primary source. I can't access All About...Bolton Wanderers at all, but nobody's provided any indication it contains SIGCOV of Scowcroft. I'm not finding anything else on my own. Jogurney (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage. Origins of the Football League has several one-line mentions throughout the book, but nothing indicating notability. BruceThomson (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find other coverage. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eik satellite earth station[edit]

Eik satellite earth station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists. But the article is currently sourced with brief mentions and unreliable sources. Sources did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has more than the sufficent ammount of sources, most of them from credited papers written by scholars, professors and proffesionals of their respective fields, and from articles and papers released by "regjeringen" and "romsenter" respectively, who are both branches of the norwegian government. There are sources from the official Inmarsat website, aswell as a well known and covered norwegian news outlet.
    The "wikimapia.org" source is based on real map data.
    So in summary the article is well covered with credited sources for every aspect of the article. Williamvennen (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the articles are not about the station, but about the satellites, or the program, or the company.Onel5969 TT me 17:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and that is why the article is not any longer than the information that is avaliable about it. Some of the articles used as sources are about sattelites, and the program, but they have mentions of the Eik Earth station. There is limited information about this, most of it in Norwegian, like the text's from "Romsenter", "Regjeringen", and "Aftenbladet".
    So most of the english sources have brief mentions of the earth station with coherent information from the text, those sources are used as references in the parts of the text that they back up, that's the reason for the relatively high number of citations for such a short text.
    And in the General Notability Guidline WP:GNG, there is written; "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
    So in short, the article has sources backing it up in all parts of the text. Williamvennen (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond confirmation of the place existing, there are no sources discussing it at length. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Complete Fail. Source eval table:
Comments Reference
ROUTINE about business deal. No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 1. "Eik jordstasjon solgt". www.aftenbladet.no (in Norwegian Bokmål). 2006-10-26. Retrieved 2023-03-12.
Nothing about Subject. Fails SIGCOV 2. ^ Farstad, Werner; Johansen, Dag; Hartvigsen, Gunnas (December 1994). "Satellite communication applied in a distributed application" (PDF). Computer Science Technical Report (Scientific Paper). Tromsø, Norway: Department of Computer Sciences, Institute of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Tromsø: 3 – via Munin.
Coverage map, not IS RS for N 3. ^ "BGAN and BGAN M2M Coverage Map". Ground Control. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
Nothing about Subject. Fails SIGCOV 4. ^ Gutteberg, Odd; Stette, Gunnar; Rosenberg, Georg; Pettersen, Terje; Amundsen, Petter CHR; Voll, Liv Odrunn; Klungsøyr, Gunn Kristin; Johannesen, Arvid Berthau; Andenæs, Jens (May 2012). "Telektronikk - Satellite Communications" (PDF). Telenor.no. Telenor. pp. 46–48. Retrieved 21 March 2023.
Nothing about Subject. Fails SIGCOV 5. ^ "Satellittkommunikasjon i Norge". romsenter.no (in Norwegian). Norsk Romsenter, Drammensveien 165, 0277 Oslo: Norsk Romsenter, Norwegian Space Agency. To-veis kommunikasjon. Retrieved 20 March 2023.
Nothing about Subject. Fails SIGCOV 6. ^ "Meld. St. 32 (2012–2013)". Regjeringen.no (in Norwegian). The Norwegian Government. 2012–2013. Fastlands-Norge. Retrieved 20 March 2023.
Wikimapia reference. Not IS RS for N 7. ^ "Inmarsat Land Earth Station, Eik". wikimapia.org. Retrieved 2023-03-12.
Wikimapia reference. Not IS RS for N 8. ^ "Inmarsat Land Earth Station, Eik, Remote Antenna Site". wikimapia.org. Retrieved 2023-03-12.
Link to corporate website. Not IS RS for N 9. ^ "Ground network". Inmarsat Corporate Website. Retrieved 2023-03-12.
No sources for N. No SIGCOV for N. Keep comment only provides their opinions, not IS RS or reasons based in policy and guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  00:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @TimothyBlue  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 14:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamambaram[edit]

Shyamambaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested redirect - not enough in-depth sourcing to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Source eval:
  • Promo :: 1.  "Shyamambaram Serial Zee Keralam Starring Haritha G Nair, Rahul Ramachandran in Lead". Kerala TV.
  • Coming soon type promo :: 2. ^ "പ്രേക്ഷകർക്ക് പുത്തൻ ദൃശ്യവിരുന്നൊരുക്കി സീ കേരളം; ഡ്രാമ ജൂനിയേഴ്സ്, ശ്യാമാംബരം ഉടൻ വരുന്നു". Samayam.
  • Photo gallery, promo :: 3. ^ "Shyamabharam TV Serial (Zee Keralam) 2023: Cast, Roles, Start Date, Story, Telecast Time, Real Names". Indian Talents.
  • Promo, interview :: 4. ^ "Haritha G Nair introduces her character Shyama in 'Shyamambaram'; says, 'I was confused whether the new makeover would suit me'". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 27 March 2023.
  • Show recap :: 5. ^ "സിംപതി കാണിച്ച് സ്‌നേഹം പിടിച്ചു പറ്റാനാണോ; ശ്യാമാംബരത്തിന് എതിരെ ദിയ സന". Samayam Malayalam (in Malayalam). Retrieved 27 March 2023.
  • Article about show drama :: 6. ^ "നിറത്തിന്റെ പേരിൽ നായികയെ ക്രൂരമായി അപമാനിച്ച് സീരിയൽ പ്രെമോ; സോഷ്യൽ മീഡിയയിൽ രൂക്ഷ വിമർശനം". malayalam.indianexpress.com. Retrieved 27 March 2023.
  • Coming soon type promo :: 7. ^ "Shyamambaram to portray the life of a dusky-skinned singer". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 27 March 2023.
BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  18:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdy Karbid[edit]

Mehdy Karbid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NTENNIS as he did not compete in any of the main ATP tournaments. Claims of competing in GHI Bronx Tennis Classic are unsubstantiated. ... discospinster talk 15:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have all been addressed, including proof of participation at the GHI Bronx Tennis Classic and other events that have Wikipedia pages.
There are many tennis players with a lot less experience than Mehdy Karbid and with a Wikipedia page that has not been questioned. All results are substantiated and included on both the ATP Tour and ITF Tennis website. He has reached a world ranking of 1000 in the world in doubles, along with all of his other achievements. He is a well known figure in his birth country, Morocco, and has done enough in and for the sport to be included, both as an athlete, coach and entrepreneur. There are lots of other tennis player and athlete pages that should have raised way more questions compared to this one.
Mehdy competed extensively in the ITF Futures circuit, which has a Wikipedia page; competed at the ATP Challenger Tour level, which has a Wikipedia page; competed at the GHI Bronx Classic, which has a Wikipedia page; competed at the Forest Hills Tennis Classic, which has a Wikipedia page; competed at the Tangier Challenger tournament, which has a Wikipedia page. These all have significant notability. One can’t just walk in and participate in those events. You actually need to earn your place through talent and accomplishment, hence notability.
I believe all issues should be resolved at this point and the deletion request is unwarranted. Tb18midd (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. I found on his ITF profile that he received a doubles wildcard to the 2002 edition of the GHI Bronx Tennis Classic but just participating in a Challenger tournament does not mean that a person is automatically notable. No sources were found during a quick search in regards to his business endeavors either. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The doubles wildcard is not something that is handed, but earned. When Andy Murray, Serena Williams, or Emma Raducanu receive a wildcard in a tournament, it is for a good reason too! Furthermore, he has participated in several Challenger events. If these events don’t matter, how come they have Wikipedia pages? Same thing for the ITF Futures events.
The fact is that the person has participated in the tournaments mentioned, and has achieved a Wild ranking of 1000 in doubles. Which is much higher than a lot of the athletes with Wikipedia pages.
Anyone who knows tennis also knows that when playing at this level, you are 100% notable, not only because of the high level of play, but also because of the fans who request autographs, pictures and meet and greets with the players, including Mehdy Karbid.
As far as the business endeavors, unpaid articles on Forbes are proof enough. Many top tennis players in the world with Wikipedia pages have have been sponsored by his company, Loriet Sports. In addition, Steel Supplements, where he is the CFO, is one of the largest Dietary Supplements brands in the world.
With proof of participating in tournaments that give notability, with a high and proven World ranking, and an article on Forbes, there shouldn’t be any issue with this page; otherwise, we might as well delete the Wikipedia page of all tennis players who never made it in the top 1000 in the world, or the page of any athletes in other sports who didn’t play in one of the major leagues in Europe or the USA, depending on the sport. For example, all MLS players should just have their Wikipedia pages removed, except for the few international stars, since all these other players are not even in the top 2500 in the world. Same for most of the soccer players in Africa, Asia, Oceania, and South America. We could do the same for all the other sports too!
Reviewers should never make a judgment call about something they do not clearly understand. The citations, proof or results and participation, are the only facts that matter here, which is why this profile meets the guidelines as defined by Wikipedia. Tb18midd (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Clark (writer)[edit]

Chris Clark (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be (SPEEDY?) deleted under WP:BE alone as the article was created by a subsequently blocked sockpuppet The Good Dante (talk · contribs) of the prolific puppetmaster is BarehamOliver (talk · contribs). Only substantial contributions since creation have been another BarehamOliver sockpuppet account Classic Middlesex (talk · contribs). However, the article has been linked into other articles by other BarehamOliver sockpuppets. One might even suspect some COI here between the subject of the article and the various sock accounts. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Crime, Police, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I feel that the repeated references in the newspapers plus the ITV documentary (I'm not necessarily calling two episodes a series but clearly people are taking note of Clark's work) take him over the WP:AUTHOR threshold of a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work".
    Regarding WP:BE, I note that edits by sockpuppets and blocked accounts don't necessarily need to be reverted and this doesn't feel like simply a puff piece. --Mgp28 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 17:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sourcing seems fine, seems to write about fringe-type things, has ample coverage. The BBC series about some of his series would seem to be critical notice of his works. Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. The article is refbombed with promo, brief mentions in articles about other subjects, interviews, etc. Discussion above shows nothing meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, and mentions no reason in policy or guidelines for keeping, or addresses WP:BLP issues. BEFORE showed nothing that helps meeting GNG or BIO, just more of the same. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  20:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is clear, and while one editor's timing of participation in the discussion may be "interesting", this has no bearing on the unanimity of other participants. BD2412 T 02:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caddy (web server)[edit]

Caddy (web server) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:ORGCRIT. Article lacks sufficient sources that meet criteria for inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Caddy is widely-used web server; according to BuiltWith it is the 8th-most used web server among the top 1 million sites. Its GitHub repository has 46.6K stars. Although this a significant fraction of this article's sources are first-party, the article's Influence section shows that Caddy is discussed in reliable third-party sources.

Iltjp (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable. Andre🚐 19:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that you came here immediately after reverting my edits on other pages. Just thought the closing editor should be aware. Have a great day! Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iltjp; Caddy definitely appears notable. Dawnbails (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vern Seward[edit]

Vern Seward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable columnist. Can't find any coverage of him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) fuzzy510 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wardle (academic)[edit]

Brian Wardle (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic. Best as I could tell (as I struggled to find much while doing a WP:BEFORE search), fails WP:NPROF. fuzzy510 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator -fuzzy510 (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Massachusetts. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is this the same individual as [1][2]. The citation record looks plausible for NPROF, but I think that the subject works in an especially high citation field. This might be a good place for the comparison method of JoelleJay. Assuming it is the same person, he seems to have been promoted to full professor, at least. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the head's up, I'll take a look. JoelleJay (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Full professor at MIT, citation record with h-index of 54, easily passes NPROF-C1. Also covered in popular media, such as Wired. --Mvqr (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as passing WP:PROF#C1, there has been significant media coverage of some of his work; for instance, beyond the 2011 Wired story above about using nanotubes to detect airplane damage, there was a splash in 2019 about a blacker-than-black pigment [3] [4]. Our article needed some updating; as of the nomination, it said he was an assistant prof, but he is full prof now. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very clear-cut case based on WP:NPROF#1 with a strong citation record and 25 papers with 100+ citations. --hroest 21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In light of the fact that I am clearly out of my depth here with academics, and this is nowhere near the clear-cut deletion case I thought it would be, I'm going to withdraw my nomination. I think there's still some work that can be done with citations for the article, but this is not the place to address that. -fuzzy510 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Original author is a sock, so speedy G5 applies. UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abbas Murtaza Shamsi[edit]

Syed Abbas Murtaza Shamsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN Politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL UtherSRG (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable party functionary. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This reads like something that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic (maybe even G11 level?), if it were notable. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is going to be deleted before that I need to add my point that this article is good for Wikipedia. Syed Abbas Murtaza Shamsi is the manager of Shia PG college Lucknow. Let me discussed please. Why you want to deleted this article. Please tell now wiki editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patna.f (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brought over from the top of the page. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop this deletion process. This article is now fine. I had removed all the unnecessary or false information. So remove the deletion tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumJaclock (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC) — HumJaclock (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Patna.f (talk · contribs). [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lady Grace Mysteries. Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Cavendish[edit]

Grace Cavendish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODed on 25 March, as the article does not meet WP:BKD. DePRODed on 28 March with rationale "The character seems to have been discussed in a number of scholarly papers."

Only source cited is a school librarian journal which barely meets WP:SIGCOV if at all (a couple of trivial mentions). WP:BEFORE shows nothing else.

Recommend redirect to Lady Grace Mysteries (which incidentally needs to be trimmed itself). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Popular culture. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why bring it to AfD if you're proposing a merge? That's typically discussed on the article's talk page. A quick scan of gscholar shows that the character's been discussed in scholarly works, so PROD is inappropriate, but a merge discussion sounds reasonable. pburka (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect, not a merge. WP:ATD-R, but as you contested the PROD, I thought it would be best to bring it to AFD first instead of afterwards. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're again proposing deleting the history, I object, but have no objection to a merge. The character is clearly notable, with coverage in Serial Crime Fiction, School Librarian, and Clues. However it's hard to separate the series from its heroine, so it's not clear to me that we need articles on both. pburka (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is there is anything in the article on the character which is not already present in the article on the series; otherwise redirect: there is no point in having separate articles as the series is about the character, the character exists only in the series. In either case, keep appropriate categories on the redirect so that she as a character appears in appropriate listings. It is not helpful to say "The author of the series is "Grace Cavendish", a pseudonym for three female authors: Patricia Finney, Sara Vogler and Jan Burchett. ", as the three did not write together: each book is either by Finney or by the other two. PamD 07:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 23:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double linking[edit]

Double linking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article fails notability (notability warning since 2015) and is adequately covered in Sociocracy DougInAMugtalk 20:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Voice (American season 16). Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for You (Maelyn Jarmon song)[edit]

Wait for You (Maelyn Jarmon song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unsourced. Redirect repeatedly challenged. Fails WP:NSONG. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artist also appears to be non-notable so I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maelyn Jarmon just now. Per that, I say this (which also lacks independent notability) should also be merged/redirected to The Voice (American season 16). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Voice per QuietHere. Though I'm not sure about the "merge" part, as the article is practically empty and there seems to be no content worth preserving. CycloneYoris talk! 02:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was probably referring to the chart appearance. Could be added in a sentence of prose with a source. Since it was her first single after the show, I'd say it's connected enough to be worth mentioning. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 23:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Lonesome Tonight? (album)[edit]

Are You Lonesome Tonight? (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NALBUM and the general notability guideline. BEFORE done, no SIGCOV in RSes. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 19:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Found no additional coverage myself. Agree with 162 about the dab page; starting a PROD on it now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and agree re: disambig page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the related dab page now has blue links for every entry (except this album) and is a valid and useful dab page. PamD 07:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD Since you challenged the PROD, I've moved to an AfD. I'd appreciate your elaboration on why this should stay; it doesn't seem so to me but perhaps I'm mistaken. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Di Mana Melani[edit]

Di Mana Melani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2012. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting because this article is ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per both above; unable to find even when queries are paired with the producer/broadcaster. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 23:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Mubarak[edit]

Khalid Mubarak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There is no significant coverage in the article and I was unable to find any during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 23:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Al-Hassan[edit]

Abbas Al-Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 19-year old footballer who fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There is no significant coverage about him in the article and the only thing remotely significant that I could find was this article were it is stated that in 2021 he was the youngest player to debut in the league since at least 2008/09 and that he is the brother of Ali Al-Hassan. Alvaldi (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 23:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Yazidi (footballer, born 1989)[edit]

Abdullah Al-Yazidi (footballer, born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There are no significant sources in the article and a search didn't turn up anything of significance. Alvaldi (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Malallah (footballer, born 1983)[edit]

Abdullah Malallah (footballer, born 1983) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There are no significant sources in the article and a search only turned up a few database sites. Alvaldi (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom; nothing significant or non-WP:ROUTINE. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Malallah (footballer, born 1991)[edit]

Ahmed Malallah (footballer, born 1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There is no significant coverage in the article and I was unable to find any during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom; nothing significant or non-WP:ROUTINE. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an WP:ATD Salvio giuliano 23:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niamh Noble[edit]

Niamh Noble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible WP:COI as the article was created by Noble1885. She fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. These sources aren't sufficient. Dougal18 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 23:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibraah[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ibraah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article still doesn't mean WP:NMUSIC, most of the sources are unreliable Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 14:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Tanzania. Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 14:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT - Article has already been deleted twice in the past three years (I voted in one of those) and it keeps getting recreated. The user behind the current version is possibly working in good faith, but the singer has not progressed beyond the "not notable" judgments in the two previous AfDs. As is typical for beginners in the African music scene, this guy has managers who blitz gossip sites and self-upload services with promo announcements, and those "sources" are then used to create the illusion of independent media coverage. I also recommend salting to prevent yet another article on this guy in the future, at least without some sort of admin review. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 23:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin D. Maddox[edit]

Justin D. Maddox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources cited are predominantly articles written by him. Others don't even mention the subject: [36] [37]. This brief mention in the NYT seems to be the best independent coverage: [38]. All in all, it does not seem as if there are sources available that provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 23:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Hills[edit]

Roger Hills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. People who are notable as members of bands, rather than as solo artists, are not automatically entitled to have standalone biographical articles as separate topics from their bands just because they exist -- the notability test requires reliable source coverage about the person as an individual, establishing that he actually has a personal notability claim independent of the band as a whole. But the only references cited here at all are one of his bands' own self-published website about itself and the chart history of that same band, with absolutely no WP:GNG-worthy sourcing about Roger Hills himself shown at all.
As he's a British musician whose peak notability would have been established in the 1970s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived 50-year-old British media coverage than I've got can find enough genuinely notability-building coverage about Roger Hills as an individual to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3[edit]

My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3

Unreleased film which does not satisfy the restrictive notability guidelines for future films as specified in the film notability guidelines.

This article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:

  • 1. Planned films that have not begun production (principal photography or animation). These planned films do not satisfy film notability.
  • 2. Films that are confirmed by reliable sources to have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability in terms of significant coverage. Mere mention of the start of production does not satisfy notability.
  • 3. Films that have been released, whose notability is determined by reception and reviews, or a major notable award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

This film is said to have completed production, but the statement that it has completed production is unsourced, so that the film cannot be confirmed to have started or completed production. There is nothing in the text of the article that reports that production or any other film activities received significant coverage by reliable sources. So the statement that it has completed production is unverified, but even if it were verified, general notability is not satisfied.

This title was a redirect to the franchise, but the redirect was replaced by a copy-paste from draft space. So a history merge is required if the article is kept, but the article should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulstate[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pulstate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced. Google doesn't turn anything up. Appears to have fallen through the cracks. Has been deleted per a previous AfD, but also previously declined for CSD. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My own research into the subject doesn’t find any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nom and above, not notable, as per my searches. CT55555(talk) 02:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian MacDonald (architect)[edit]

Ian MacDonald (architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ian MacArthur is not a notable architect. The article also reads like an advertisement or an “About Us” section on a company website.

Note: thecanadianencyclopedia.com is listed as an external link, but the website is offline. Did they shut down? After changing it to .ca, it gives me a 404, so the external link either rotted or was incorrectly typed then taken down by the Canadian Encyclopedia. BenzoAid (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn’t a record of winning awards for being you in your field demonstrate that you are not just a run of the mill architect? How many others have such a record? Mccapra (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nevermind, the Canadian Encyclopedia is online, my internet connection just sucked in that few minutes I tried checking the website. // 💪Benzo💪 (Send me a message!) (Here's what I've contributed.) 08:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain and the sources they provided. Subject seems notable enough to pass GNG. CycloneYoris talk! 08:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Technology Solutions[edit]

Spirit Technology Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Telecommunications company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - coverage is mostly articles about stock prices and acquisitions, which doesn't meet the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Australia. AllyD (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: AFR article, market herald + other sources seem to be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @GMH Melbourne. As the AFR article[39] is subscriber only, are you able to help us evaluate whether it amounts to significant and independent coverage of the company? An idea of the article length, scope and summary of content would be useful. Also, a rough proportion of how much of the text is written by the publisher's staff versus that attributable to either direct quotes from Spirit's directors/employees or 'the company said/added' type of remark. Rupples (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFR article is based *entirely* on information provided by the company with no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Same content in these other articles around the same date - Latimer Partners, ARN and CRN. Fails the criteria for establishing notability. Similarly, the Market Herald article relies entirely on information provided by the company and quotes from company officials, also fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing++ 12:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not seeing enough indepth coverage to pass GNG/NCORP. Rupples (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Doyle (writer)[edit]

David Doyle (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any sources referencing this author. Article is written in a very promotional tone. (Indeed, an editor with the same name has edited it extensively.) SWinxy (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a short search, I found a considerable number of articles, that cite works of Doyle, David as sources, including: 2½-ton 6×6 truck, 5-ton 6×6 truck, 6-ton 6×6 truck, Autocar U8144T 5- to 6-ton 4×4 truck, Brockway Motor Company, Chevrolet G506, Diamond T, Diamond T 4-ton 6×6 truck, Dodge M37, Dodge T-, V-, W-Series, Dodge WC series, DUKW, Gama Goat, GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6×6 truck, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, Hercules DFXE, Jim Allen (4x4 writer), K-31 truck, Kaiser Jeep M715, Kenworth 10-ton 6x6 heavy wrecking truck, List of soft-skinned vehicles of the US military, List of United States Army tactical truck engines, M10 tank destroyer, M123 and M125 10-ton 6x6 trucks, M151 ¼-ton 4×4 utility truck, M19 Tank Transporter, M2 High Speed Tractor, M274 ½-ton 4×4 utility platform truck, M35 series 2½-ton 6×6 cargo truck, M39 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, M520 Goer, M6 Bomb Service Truck, M809 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, M816 Wrecker, M939 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, Mack NM 6-ton 6x6 truck, Mack NO 7½-ton 6x6 truck, Mack Trucks, Mack Trucks in military service, Pz.Sfl. Ia, Steven Zaloga, Studebaker US6 2½-ton 6×6 truck, Willys Go Devil engine, Willys MB, amongst others .. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be totally convincing if Wikipedia was usable as a source, but it isn't, so nothing here contributes to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability in existing sources. Sources used in the article don't appear to be independent. Being used as a reference in a Wikipedia article does not contribute to notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as promotional and authorspam. I've tried multiple searches to find a source discussing this guy and can't find even one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deathmatch#Variations. History is available if there is useful content to merge. RL0919 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Arena (mod)[edit]

Rocket Arena (mod) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to fail WP:GNG with only a couple reviews from a single publication, not even of the same version of the mod. Apparently the previous deletion discussion resulted in a keep from some "random mentions" - standards were definitely lower in 2006. While I did a magazine search, and there are mentions of the mod in many gaming magazines, they all appear to be from one to a few sentences long, trivial and without much analysis. This lack of WP:SIGCOV is not fitting for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Quake (series). This is a mod for a single series of video games, and one magazine's coverage of it does not represent sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. I'd argue that in an ideal world, there would be a "Mods" section added to the Quake series article that could go into more in-depth coverage here, and I'd say that this could maybe have a sentence at most. Definitely does not feel like a full merge is appropriate. Nomader (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean "a full merge" but I guess redirect is fine. Deathmatch would be more appropriate target since it's also a mod for Unreal Tournament and a game mode in Doom 2016. --Mika1h (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I didn't catch that in my readthrough, thanks for the clarification. I'd be fine with that as the redirect target. Nomader (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zé Pedro Alves[edit]

Zé Pedro Alves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article states that he was an amateur for almost all of his career and no significant coverage has been presented. In my searches, I found plenty about Zé Pedro (footballer, born 1978) (José Pedro Alves Salazar) but very little about this Zé Pedro. Soccerway has a fairly bare page on him and D Noticias is a very brief transfer announcement. No indication of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tsunami (band). I considered a third relist, but all three people in the discussion broadly agree that the subject isn't suitable for a stand-alone article Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Thomson[edit]

Kristin Thomson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and searches did not reveal any. Onel5969 TT me 11:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 14:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge properly sourced material to Tsunami (band), even if this BLP was to barely pass N, it would still be an unnecessary fork and the content is better off in the target.  // Timothy :: talk  13:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sokol Çela[edit]

Sokol Çela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any clear evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources I could find were Panorama 1, which is just a quote from him regarding KF Tomori, which is the real main subject of the article, and Panorama 2, a very brief quote with no content independent of Çela. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–2027 ICC Cricket World Cup League 2[edit]

2023–2027 ICC Cricket World Cup League 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Way WP:TOOSOON. Nothing has been confirmed yet, no dates, fixtures. The qualification for 2023 WC hasn't even completed yet. So, I see no point in keeping an article for 2027 WC Qualification in advance, since there's not even mentions about this tournament in news articles or sources. RoboCric (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Out of 7 teams 5 are already decided and remaining 2 will be decided in couple of days from now. So its not too soon. Virander Sirohi (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this article https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/3118649 its clearly mentioned about next cycle of League 2 and qualification to League 2 Virander Sirohi (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{Ping|Hey man im josh}} did you review this page? Virander Sirohi (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ICC has confirmed CWC League 2 for next edition, and we already have some information about that, like team who have qualified, the way of qualification for this. So, we should definitely keep this article. and this article is not in advance, as we already have information, so we should has that info somewhere written. Kaaryanm (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see this as being too soon. While the details are certainly yet to be confirmed, the existence of the League has been announced. There will likely be 8 teams in the second edition with Netherlands added (from the defunct Super League). Another five are confirmed, and the last two are being decided this week. Bs1jac (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only with actual sourcing from later than 2019. I think the broad outline is roughly correct (and will probably include NED) so this tournament is "confirmed" enough to warrant a page. 165.12.252.105 (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are sources to confirm this new cycle of League 2 which include ICC Cricket itself and other independent sources. Have a look here: 1 2 3 Cheers! --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim
  • Keep Appears to be enough coverage on the league to deem an article as of now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's the point in deleting it when will have to eventually re-add it as well as the fact that the ICC confirmed this structure. Davidcoleffc
Keep it - contains important information, helping to show us the complete picture. --DLMcN (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet College Fateh Jang[edit]

Cadet College Fateh Jang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hardly any significant coverage in reliable sources. Two cited sources are not significant as one is a press release and other one an opinion piece by a student. Doesn't pass WP:NSCHOOL. BookishReader (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

college is affiliated with higher education commission government of pakistan @Higher Education Commission Pakistan also found affiliation proof of this college with education board @Rawalpindi Board , Punjab Pakistan and found results for year 2022 of this institution Board of Intermediate and secondary education Rawalpindi, punjab Jhonwilliam10 (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz @Ngrewal1 Educational Guide of Pakistan, Volume 4" was published in 2003 and this college was founded in 2001 so clearly we can expect to find details of college in the book. In addition to this higher education commission and board of intermediate and secondary education both government of pakistan offices have listed Cadet College FatehJang among their affiliated institutes list on their official webpage.
@Guerillero
Higher Education Government Of Punjab Pakistan : List of Affiliated Institutions Page 49 of 73 , row serial no 993
Board Of Intermediate & Secondary education Government of Punjab Pakistan, Press Search All .”, Serial no 2829 Institute Code 200225
BISE Rawalpindi Result 20 October 2022 12th Grade by Government of Punjab Pakistan, Page 30 Institute Code 200225 Jhonwilliam10 (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings fellows Wikipedia editors! If you're looking for evidence of notability, I have an exciting piece of news to share. While researching Cadet College Fateh Jang in Pakistan, I discovered newspaper coverage on the college— making the discussion fruitful for the respected members.
Cadet College Fateh Jang also written in Urdu as کیڈٹ کالج فتح جنگ . As this college is in Pakistan and most of the newspapers are in urdu language here so one need to search in both languages i.e. English & Urdu. Urdu is the official language of Pakistan.
[40] The News International
[41] Nawai Waqat Leading Urdu Newspaper
[42] Nawai Waqat Leading Urdu Newspaper 2
[43] Dunya Newspaper
[44] Dunya Newspaper Source 2
[45] Star News
[46] Jhelum newspaper
[47] The Jang Newspaper : leading Newspaper in Pakistan
[48] The Dawn Newspaper
[49] The Nation Newspaper
[50] CCFJ Ex student who was martyred in Attack on APS School Peshawar, The Innocent Ones: 144 People. 144 Stories. 144 Regrets Google Ebook
[51] Pakistan Government Television News interviewing students of CCFJ , Video
Educational Guide of Pakistan, Volume 4 published in 2003 i am sure that it will have information about this college.
Another Major discovery was a book i found in local library but i am unable to find it's soft form on internet. The book Name is The Chandelier : A brief history of the public and private colleges of district Attock written by Professor Usman Siddiqui & Professor Shaukat Mahmmod Shaukat , Publisher: Bazme -e-Takhleeq o Tehqeeq Islamabad. Page No 202 . [52]Pictures of Book for information only.
Hope i have contributed to the group well! Saeali198 (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Although 5 of the 7 references in the article are primary, the references provided by @Saeali198 have some brief mentions in reliable sources. The article needs some improvement as it is written like an essay and advert.M.Ashraf333 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Samma English News: Dr Samar Mubarak renowned scientist of Pakistan visited Cadet College Fateh Jang 39.32.79.255 (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023-2026 ICC Cricket World Cup Challenge League[edit]

2023-2026 ICC Cricket World Cup Challenge League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely non-notable. Nothing has been confirmed yet, no exact dates, no fixtures. The 2023 ICC Cricket World Cup Challenge Play-off and the Cricket World Cup hasn't even started yet. Top teams from the playoff are supposed to join the next cycle, but the playoff itself hasn't commenced yet. So, I find no reason to keep this article in advance, way WP:TOOSOON RoboCric (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so thats true, out of 12, 6 teams are already confirmed and remaining two will be decided in couple of days from now. Virander Sirohi (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show the dates for this tournament? I can't find any significant coverage about the scheduling of the 2026 edition. You can't just create an article based on presumptions RoboCric (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dates will be announced soon but teams are already confirmed for next tournament Virander Sirohi (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't create an event article unless it has been discussed in many reliable sources or the dates are confirmed. RoboCric (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so you are saying as per https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/3118649 article "In a curious event within the event, the bottom two League 2 teams (UAE and PNG), and each of the Challenge League winners (Canada and Jersey), will be competing for two places in the League 2 tournament - and ODI status that comes with it - in the next cycle."
ICC states that there will be second edition of the tournament in that article Virander Sirohi (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The top two of those four teams will grab a League 2 spot, while the remaining two will play in the Challenge League.
Next para. Virander Sirohi (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{Ping|Hey man im josh}} did you review this page as well? Virander Sirohi (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ICC has confirmed CWC Challenge League for next edition, and we already have some information about that, like team who have qualified, the way of qualification for this. So, we should definitely keep this article. Kaaryanm (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, the ICC will be typically late in announcing the full details for the 2023-26 competition but there are no indications at all that it will not take place, and as previously mentioned above several mentions of teams facing relegation to the Challenge league for the next cycle. Eddsnake (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per @Virander Sirohi. There are other sources independent outside of ICC Cricket too which clarify this in particular. You can have a look at them: 1 2 3
--WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 15:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it - as part of a "network" embracing several different tournaments, which involves relegation/promotion between the various sections. It therefore helps to follow and understand the complete picture... [For example, it is helpful that it is already mentioned in the Points Table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Cricket_World_Cup_Qualifier_Play-off ] DLMcN (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lili Morto[edit]

Lili Morto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

YouTuber/singer. She has around 20k subscribers so hasn't made a big splash online. Most of the article is sourced to YouTube, and I don't see reliable sources outside of YouTube. Fails GNG. Mvqr (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelrahman Rashid[edit]

Abdelrahman Rashid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested redirect - zero in-depth coverage, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism WTF[edit]

Feminism WTF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While well-sourced, those sources do not establish notability. Would have redirected to the director, but the redirect was reverted, so as per recent discussions at ANI, AfD is the only option. Fails WP:GNG. See the table below:


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Example
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://cphdox.dk/film/feminism-wtf/ No Yes The source is from a festival which ran the film No The source is a short blurb about the film ✘ No
https://www.filmfonds-wien.at/films/feminism-wtf/theater Yes Yes No simple db entry ✘ No
hhttps://www.crew-united.com/en/Feminism-WTF__257660.html Yes Yes No another db entry ✘ No
https://www.meinbezirk.at/baden/c-freizeit/katharina-mueckstein-zeigt-neuesten-film-in-wien_a5914552 Yes ? Can't find editorial policy No Brief mention ✘ No
hhttps://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20181129_OTS0072/23-millionen-fuer-zehn-neue-kinostoffe Yes Yes No Brief mention ✘ No
https://cineuropa.org/en/newsdetail/364334/ Yes Yes No Brief mention ✘ No
https://cineuropa.org/fr/interview/364880/ Yes Yes No Brief mention ✘ No
https://stadtkinowien.at/verleih/feminism-wtf/ No The institution was publicizing the screening of the film No No editorial oversight Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✘ No
hhttps://web.archive.org/web/20221223132224/https://filmstandort-austria.at/en/movie/feminism-wtf No The institute funded the film Yes No Short blurb on film ✘ No
https://fm4.orf.at/stories/3029820/ Yes Yes No Brief mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

There are two more refs (the table only goes to 10). One from FISA, which is not independent, and then a YouTube video, which is non-reliable. Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the chart above, there are no RS. I can't find anything extra. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More sources and reviews have been added as the film was screened at another festival this weekend. Is that enough to count as notable?
Zoolver (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the newly added sources push this over for notability. In particular, the Die Presse and Kronen Zeitung source. Rab V (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe all sources combined cover the topic pretty well, plus the ones that have been added recently. --Brunnaiz (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article subject has appeared in media to a degree sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV guidelines and warrant keeping the article under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. The case for deletion would be stronger if these conditions weren’t met (i.e. if the subject didn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG). However, the degree to which the subject has appeared in media is sufficient to satisfy the relevant guidelines SIGCOV, RS, GNG, and NOTABILITY, and as such the argument for keeping is stronger on its merits than that for deletion. The sources provided in the table above satisfy SIGCOV requirements necessary to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG guidelines. On my own review of the subject and sources, I find that notability criteria are met by the amount of demonstrable reliable independent source significant coverage. Additionally, the nature of the coverage indicates WP:IMPACT, which also supports inclusion as a standalone article under inclusion guidelines. The fact that promotional material exists on the subject is not a valid reason to suggest deletion (many subjects covered in Wikipedia articles are heavily promoted outside of Wikipedia, but that doesn’t negate their notability). Furthermore, the subject does indeed pass notability thresholds under the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. I wholeheartedly concur with the above keep votes and further note that they are strongly based in existing Wikipedia policy. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails GNG and NFILM. Lots of promo no SIGCOV. The souce eval table above shows this article lacks IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Promo, not IS, primary and database records do not show N. The sources added to the article are more promo and mentions, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV. All new films have promo, might be TOOSOON, but not today.  // Timothy :: talk  01:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the film in question has just opened in its native Austria, this may warrant a Weak keep once 2–3 reviews (in German or otherwise) can be located. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 3 reviews listed in the article so far, two of them from big Austrian newspapers. And the film just won an award at Diagonale. Zoolver (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a new film that was released in theaters during this discussion, the sources in the table are sufficient. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The source assessment table doesn't include all sources, so is an unhelpful distraction (unless someone wants to update it), German sources and the award convince me that this is sufficiently notable. CT55555(talk) 02:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of One Piece characters. If editors think there is content that is worth merging, they are free to do it through normal procedures. Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trafalgar D. Water Law[edit]

Trafalgar D. Water Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested redirect - zero real world notability. Delete as per WP:NOTPLOT. Would have restored redirect, but recent ANI discussions have taken that option away, so now we are here. Onel5969 TT me 11:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Redirect As a fan of One Piece and of the character, this article is completely null and void of anything interesting or noteworthy, but I think there is still hope to salvage this article by making this into a draft before sending it to the article mainspace.SimonLagann (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to redirect. SimonLagann (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • One question: What do you mean by "zero real-world notability"? This is a fictional character. If Law has "zero real-world notability" then neither does half of Marvel Comics's rogues gallery. In the fifth popularity poll of One Piece, Law came second, a position usually held by Roronoa Zoro, and the global poll in 2021 he finished in the Top 10. SimonLagann (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonLagann: I assume what was meant was that there are only sources discussing the character in-universe, like plot-summary and it's importance for the other characters. Real-world notability is when sources talk about impact of the character on the real world: If he is popular by the readers/viewers (such as the polls you mentioned, if published in reliable sources), how the character creation worked (like in the CBR article), real-world cultural connotations (like in this paper), etc. Daranios (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page; This character is one of the most important characters in the best-selling continuous comics of all time. Plumber (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. nn character does not need a stand alone article. Wikipedia is not Fandom and there is a good target.  // Timothy :: talk  04:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge to List of One Piece characters. It's not correct that there is "zero real world notability": The CBR article has a bit on the character creation, and this academic paper, has some discussion of real-world cultural/historical connections made by the creators, both of which should have been found in a WP:BEFORE search. It's not a great deal of information, though, so I am fine with either merge or keep. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect unless someone tries to make a reception section. Right now this is pure WP:FANCRUFT. It has some potential, per Daranios, but it cannot be kept in the current "poor-copy-of-Fandom" style. (If anyone adds a receptions section, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to List of One Piece characters. The coverage isn't enough to pass notability, but there may be a way to preserve some of this. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thunderstrike (comics)#Kevin Masterson. History is available for editors to merge any useful content to other articles. RL0919 (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderstrike (Kevin Masterson)[edit]

Thunderstrike (Kevin Masterson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as per WP:NOTPLOT. Zero in-depth coverage of the character. Would have restored the redirect, but recent discussions at ANI have left AfD as the only option since the redirect was contested. Onel5969 TT me 10:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with his section at Thunderstrike in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer about three sentences to List of Marvel Comics characters: T and then Redirect this link to Thunderstrike. Comics articles often play very loose with notability guidelines and secondary sources, but this article's condition and the extremely limited nature of the character on top of the usual comics article problems means remove it, but drop blurbs in the two locations the previous editors suggested above me in the AfD -Markeer 23:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively. Does not meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Thunderstrike (comics)#Kevin Masterson - This iteration of the character does not have nearly enough sources to indicate enough notability for a stand alone article. The sentence or two on the main Thunderstrike page is sufficient enough for this to be used as a Redirect there. Rorshacma (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rorshacma and allow editors to selectively merge through the editing process. This doesn't have enough notability for a stand alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjeet Kumar Shukla[edit]

Ranjeet Kumar Shukla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio of non-notable individual, apparently created by someone connected to the subject. Would have draftified but this has already been cut and pasted from draft. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I cut pasted from draft, but he is notable individual, political Leader at Indian National Congress. Current work in Bihar Congress district- Vaishali ,
Check his twitter profile-
https://twitter.com/ranjeetkrshukla
And i am not connected to subject. Manjuranishukla (talk). 07:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please share three references showing in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One reference, written by the subject of the article. He may be notable, but that is not proven by independent sources. Ira Leviton (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and not passes NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per criterion G12. Per both Mccapra's comments above that they "cut pasted from draft" and from an Earwig check ([53]), the article is a *clear* copyvio of the only reference it's cited to (which is by the subject themselves). Checks for other reliable sources also came up completely empty on my end. Nomader (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Notable. Promotional article which is evident from this sentence "This article will delve into his background, achievements, and his contributions to Indian society" Charsaddian (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG. The content is chatbot-generated. —Alalch E. 10:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Machinima#Quake movies. Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blahbalicious[edit]

Blahbalicious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the article has existed since 2006, it doesn't seem to at any point have demonstrated standalone notability. A WP:BEFORE - including full magazine search - has unearthed some trivial mentions saying it was well regarded and the first feature-length Machinima movie (although it's apparently just a bunch of individual sketches), but no significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Nayagam[edit]

John Nayagam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NACTOR as the only significant role appears to be a few episodes in one soap opera. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This seems like a resolution that folks can agree on. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Yijun (badminton)[edit]

Zhu Yijun (badminton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON Stvbastian (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and China. Stvbastian (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as the creator). Firstly, TOOSOON is not a formal guideline yet and it cannot bypass other notability guidelines, such as GNG. Secondly, the article meets WP:BASIC with three secondary, independent and reliable sources (including one which is entirely about the subject itself). Thirdly, according to the informal TOOSOON, it is considered as TOOSOON only when the content is not verifiable. However, this article passes BASIC and is verifiable with secondary sources, so it is not TOOSOON. (Reminder: As the creator of the article, I am just trying to explain why TOOSOON is not a valid reason for deletion.) Timothytyy (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify the subject seems to have some promise, but it unfortunately doesn't pass WP:NBAD at this point of time. Contrary to the claims above by the article creator, 4 out of 6 references in the article are primary in which none of them discuss the subject in detail and only lists match outcomes or passing mentions. The Olympic source is also only about the match outcomes. Only the very first source in the article discusses about the subject in depth (Sohu). So my take is to move this article to draft space for now. zoglophie 14:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly agree. Draftifying is also a good way to provide more space for improvement. Timothytyy (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanaé Audet-Beaulieu[edit]

Dhanaé Audet-Beaulieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Can't find WP:SIGCOV in English or French sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Luce[edit]

Raphael Luce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, no secondary sources, but fewer sources been cited, also numerous unreliable sources. Surveyor Mount (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malki Kawa[edit]

Malki Kawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, not independently notable Nswix (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_April_2&oldid=1149135096"