Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 04	January 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. This article can not be Merged to I Bukuri i Qiellit as that page is a redirect to another article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E Bukura e Qiellit[edit]

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

The subject of the article is an alleged Albanian mythological creature, which does not actually appear in Albanian folklore. The few sources that mention the subject of the article cite the works of the Albanologist Maximilian Lambertz, who does not report the female figure "E Bukura e Qiellit", but the male figure "I Bukuri i Qiellit". Βατο (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to i Bukuri i Qiellit ~~E Bukura e Dheut, which is also the parent article that Elsie refers to~~. So Elsie, Çabej and Bon are all mistaken? If so, these sources exist, so this "modern assumption" should still be documented. Is there any other source which could verify that it's an erroneous reading? It's an interesting case: If its an erroneous concept, that fact should be pointed out. But we should not do original research. But I guess a comparison between the original source (Lambertz) and those erroneously citing him would not actually be a conclusion, just a comparison, right? Daranios (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bon does not report a source for her statement. So far in the sources I have not found a figure called "E Bukura e Qiellit" who "reigns over the sun and the moon". Such a tradition would have been mentioned in other sources, it seems to be a new interpretation of the original folk material provided by Lambertz. Çabej just makes the error of misspelling the phrase provided by Lambertz referring to a female figure instead of a male figure (he directly cites Lambertz when talking about those figures). This source (p. 349) expressly states that "In narrative folklore, including epics and fairy tales, "e Bukura e Qiellit" does not exist." ("Në folklorin rrëfimtar, duke përfshirë eposin dhe përrallat, nuk ekziston "e bukura e qiellit"."). – Βατο (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Βατο: That's great then. I only now realized that I Bukuri i Qiellit is already present as a part of Zojz (deity). So E Bukura e Qiellit should be briefly explained there as a modern misconception/erroneous name variant. Which still means a merge with some additional explanation to me. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has been explained there that this figure has not been attested. This is a major issue with Albanian paganism as many academics make claims without facts about various mythic characters. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons listed above by the nominator. Iaof2017 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ktrimi991. Lack of significant coverage to attest to its notabilty. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: So what do you think of merging the information elsewhere, as suggested in the deletion policy and WP:SIGCOV itself ("If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.")? Daranios (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose a selective merger ("smerge"). Bearian (talk) 14:53, 12 January 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!} 23:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moamel Ahmed Shakeer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography of a computer programmer; previous AfD 6 months ago ended in no consensus. When I happened upon it earlier today it suffered from extreme citekill, with 45 sources, 43 of them press releases, including up to 11 copie of the same PR, issued by the company he is the director of. I spent more than an hour on it, comparing sources and weeding out duplicates and irrelevant PRs. The article is now supported by seven press releases and two interviews that contain much the same info as the PRs.

I think it is clear that WP:BASIC is not met, and the article doesn't in fact make any real claim to notability. bonadea contributions talk 23:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the article looked like before I cleaned it up today. --bonadea contributions talk 23:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iraq. bonadea contributions talk 23:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person has done a lot of vandalism, including articles and deletion of things, and this will affect the vote or the decision to delete

This article has been upvoted for the second time in less than a year.

Pretending to be a vulnerability finder

You can find his name in the Facebook honor list

If you search...

https://www.facebook.com/whitehat/

2018/2019/2021

And also this personal writes in the newspaper Sky News

It is considered one of the most famous newspapers in the world

Please re-post the article before the edits made by this person Muamalq (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook being used for sourcing tells us this person isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found, this "digital influencer" (according to his photo caption) isn't at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the last AfD, he seems to publish many of his own press releases and pushes them out to various media outlets. His claim to fame is that he was one of 129 people to find a bug in a facebook thing. Being one of a group of 100+ people doesn't make him more notable than the other 128 people in the group, none of which have articles on wiki. He's attempting to build his brand, using wiki to do so. Most "influencers" aren't notable, in spite of what they may tell you; we need published, neutral material in sources unrelated to the subject at hand. Oaktree b (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the page history, it appears to have been created by someone with a COI and was rejected twice from the AfC process with one rationale being: "Just being an IT security specialist and doing one's job isn't enough.". It appears nothing has changed since the article was created. I'd suggest a SALT but that seems premature at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources prove that he is a digital influencer

https://www.skynewsarabia.com/business/1574341-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82-%D9%8A%D8%AE%D9%81%D8%B6-%D8%A7%D9%94%D8%B3%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9-1-%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%B1

https://www.skynewsarabia.com/varieties/1545095-%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%8A%D8%B4%D8%B9%D9%84-%D8%BA%D8%B6%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86

https://www.skynewsarabia.com/technology/1582059-%D9%88%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B0%D9%84%D9%83-%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B0%D8%A7-%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%81%D8%AC%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%88%D9%84%D8%9F

https://www.skynewsarabia.com/varieties/1543786-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AA%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%95%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B6%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%87

https://www.skynewsarabia.com/technology/1509528-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B6%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%AD%D8%B8%D8%B1-%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%83-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%95%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%81 Muamalq (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep Moamel Ahmed is not only a person who discovers loopholes, but rather an influential person in the Arab and Iraqi technical world in particular...

And you can do a search for her name in Arabic to know the amount of fame that he possesses. Some sources can take the name and search better https://www.skynewsarabia.com/search?q=%D9%85%D8%A4%D9%85%D9%84%20%D8%B4%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%B1&offset=24&sort=RELEVANCE (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is one of those situations where more is less. I think an attempt by Bonadea to fix the previous mess has been somewhat successful. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks to me like WP:BASIC is not met. This is a case where WP:THREE is excellent advice: what are the core 2-3 sources taken to establish notability? The sources I checked seemed too brief. Suriname0 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 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!} 22:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External quality assessment[edit]

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

Only two (2) sources. The first has been moved. The second goes nowhere. This article also appears to be original research or synthesis. DarklitShadow (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. DarklitShadow (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any relation to my other open AFD (closed as keep) (here) is purely a coincidence. DarklitShadow (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. The first source is social media. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 11 January 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. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Karl Glover[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No reliable sources while Googlin' it up, nothin'. Sarrail (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Sarrail (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as written. BD2412 T 21:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looking at his IMDB page, I saw that he has appeared in 4 interviews and 7 articles, including game magazines such as Computer Gaming World and Power Play, and some newspapers such as Austin American Statesman. I was initially unable to locate all of these sources, but I did find two that may meet WP:GNG - the CGW magazine and an article from the Statesman on the WP Library. In case someone else wants to locate the rest of the sources, use the IMDB link above. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep I couldn't locate enough trustworthy sources in my BEFORE research, but after checking at his work, it appears that he is qualified for a Wikipedia article.. Tictictoc (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A wikipedia libary search turns up empty, and as the nom said google also doesn't show anything reliable.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the two sources given above, I can't find anything extra, but they offer just enough notability. Oaktree b (talk) 04:46, 6 January 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 2026 United States gubernatorial elections#New York. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2026 New York Gubernatorial Election[edit]

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

Listing this at AfD, since the draftification was contested. Not enough reliable sources exist for coverage of this topic. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, and New York. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: It's probably worth noting that the page is a mis-capitalization of 2026 New York gubernatorial election, which already exists as a redirect to 2026 United States gubernatorial elections#New York. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2026 United States gubernatorial elections#New York as a plausible typo (I'd rather it be delete but we long ago let inclusionists create redirects for a next election four years later the moment after a vote was certified ~~because I guess Americans aren't allowed a break from thinking about elections~~). Nate • (chatter) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MrSchimpf. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2026 United States gubernatorial elections#New York, as proposed above, as a viable ATD. Per WP:TOOSOON, the subject does not presently meet the notability standards needed to warrant a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ABHammad (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2026 United States gubernatorial elections#New York as WP:TOOSOON. I'd also be OK with a working draft being created in the draftspace, as this topic will eventually need its own article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:47, 8 January 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. My non-binding suggestion is to let this rest for a few weeks, see if the name issue can be resolved and then decide if renomination is warranted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davaasambuugiin Delgernyam[edit]

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

While in his specialty he is very accomplished, that does not meet WP:NBASKET, and not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Mongolia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs some feedback, no discussion's occurred yet...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't find any sources, in English and I'm not sure what's showing up in Mongolian using Gtranslate, RS-wise. The sources given just confirm he's played basketball. I would prefer if a Mongolian-language speaker could do a source review. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't soft-delete so final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He is an Asian Champion in an Olympic sport, that sounds notable to me. I think he is a well known athlete in 3x3 circuit. but yes I understand if 3x3 itself doesn't get lots of coverage and lots of people don't consider 3x3 basketballers notable and they have a good point. and by the way if you google him as D. Delgernyam more Mongolian articles about him show up. but please don't redirect the article to his club or his national team. that's totally irrelevant to me. keep it or delete it. Sports2021 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the lack of sources is probably because the name is incorrect. The actual name is Davaasambuu Delgernyam, not Davaasambuugiin (cross-referenced with date of birth and FIBA records). The correct name in Cyrillic comes up with decent number of hits, both officially and popular. Vote to redirect to correct name and then let the good referencers go at it. Kazamzam (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mongolia men's national 3x3 team. A redirect works since the consensus isnt very strong.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 12:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually I disagree only with this solution, I can't understand the point of redirecting an athlete's page to his team/club. I think if someone is not notable enough to have a page in wikipedia, it should be a red link. Sports2021 (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Redlinks are only for subjects which are notable, but the article has not been written yet. So if this article is not kept, it shouldn't be a redlink anywhere. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That's irrelevant to what I am trying to say. (probably my fault) I mean if you redirect an article it will appear as blue link. it sometimes misguides people that the person in blue link is notable enough to have a page. I'm only against the redirect, not the deletion. Sports2021 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay, yeah, didn't get your drift. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:08, 10 January 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!} 23:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gunter[edit]

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

Article about an artist that doesn't meet WP:NARTISTS or WP:SIGCOV at most. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being featured at a tulip festival is hardly wiki-worthy. Zero hits on this person, lots of hits on anyone with his name. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Page doesn't qualify for wiki. It reads like a resume or self-promotion. Wikipedia Community (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Striking sock vote. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state for the record that I have no WP:COI relationship with the subject. I only admire his art.

The article is currently a newly created stub. Help appreciated on improving the article. PK-WIKI (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable northwest artist; citations show significant coverage in major reliable sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added some information from the Washington State Arts Commission, but the subject still fails WP:NARTISTS. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:WomenArtistUpdates I added a Seattle Times citation rating Jack Gunter's life-sized mural in the local theater as a Top-10 attraction in Snohomish County. This should pass the WP:NARTISTS qualification "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument". PK-WIKI (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that his mural being part of one of the top ten attractions in a US county is the intent of criterion 4(a) of WP:ARTIST. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything that would meet NARTIST nor GNG. There are some articles about him in a local paper but nothing with a broader audience. I note also that his books are self-published. Lamona (talk) 15:52, 7 January 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. Sandstein 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Urban Development Network[edit]

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

WP:ORG. All articles on this topic were generated by the parent organization. No significant independent reporting seems to exist. BruceThomson (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldnt find any other sources as well, fails GNG and NCOMPNAY.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: The topic is noteworthy, however the tone is promotional and might be improved. Obtains WP:GNG. Tictictoc (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anyone who knows of independent coverage of the topic should post links. BruceThomson (talk) 11:07, 8 January 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. Sandstein 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Winston Jones[edit]

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

This film was shot back in 2012 with a release date set for 2014. That never happened and no reason was given. There's an assumed reason as seen on the article talk page, but no source correlates that is the reason for it being unreleased.

I feel the article fails WP:NFF: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. Mike Allen 20:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mike Allen 20:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF with no indication it will ever be released. Doubletiberius (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Jaydoggmarco (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of abandoned and unfinished films. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, consensus and reasons above. The Film Creator (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF Equine-man (talk) 15:53, 12 January 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. Does not meet speedy deletion criteria, but I read the most detailed comment as an unstated delete, or at least as "I looked and failed to find evidence of notability", which comes to the same thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truevision3D[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources. Mdggdj (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with literally 0 sources can't it meet speedy requirements?

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deproded the article in 2022 on procedural grounds (previous prod/deprod) with no opinion on notability. I didn't find any reliable sources about the article subject - few mentions only. If there are reviews in specialized press, I was not able to find these. As of speedy deletion, I don't think any of the ciriteria are useable here. Pavlor (talk) 08:59, 6 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Bleasdale[edit]

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

Credits (and media notice) seem rather too thin to satisfy WP:NACTOR, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets notwithstanding. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, the article starts out by saying she's only ever had minor roles, so that's a good indication of non-notability. She's done a ton of acting work, but IMDB shows it's only ever been one-offs, she was in East Enders and Coronation street, playing the same character at most for 6 episodes. I can't find any discussion of her beyond simple cast lists or her social media. She's not attained ACTOR or GNG I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her Rotten Tomatoes bio is about as bare, so no critical attention found about any character she's played. Simply one of many actors doing her craft. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article had no sourcing beyond the unreliable imdb, so should have been BLPPRODded a long time ago. I've now added her BFI listing, so we do at least have a reliable source for her filmography, but I could find nothing about her beyond routine listings. PamD 09:33, 6 January 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!} 17:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naga Bhargavi[edit]

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

Not seeing sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, page curation tells me this was deleted previously but I can't seem to find any logs or old afd's, so apologies if there is another process we should use.

The sources are all leaning on Youtube so far, and the creator has a declaration on their user page that may be relevant. ASUKITE 18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. ASUKITE 18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any sources. What's given here is Youtube videos and cast lists. Nothing for GNG. She's still young, likely TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the photo's likely been copied from her instagram feed, uploaded by a red-linked user with no proof they took the photo submitted. Further red flags in AfD, based on my experience here. Tagged the photo as a copyvio. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the picture is not copied from instagram feed and is shared with creator of the article personally upon request Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well it's been tagged as a copyright violation, I can't handle it further, it will be dealt with there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is a credible celebrity in telugu film circuit. Its not toosoon per say to include her on wiki as info about her is readily available on google and not just youtube Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is a supporting actress and hence the lists are casting lists and I request to consider not deleting the page for i have added more sources for google apart from youtube videos Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references and sources from google and other articles that were interviews of the same person. Kindly review Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Youtube there are also references that are added on the article which are sources from google and other websites. Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One movie review that doesn't mention her very much helps a little bit, the other article is about the casting couch, both are weak sources. Still not enough to keep the article, the rest of the sources are still youtube and a model profile page. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage to support WP:GNG and WP:NBIO — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish we had better standards to follow. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 11 January 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!} 17:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 12[edit]

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

Moving this to AfD since PROD failed. This article clearly violates WP:Crystal, as it's 100% speculation and rumors, regardless of the source of the rumors. Following past precedent, articles about Windows versions have been deleted prior to an official announcement, including Windows 8. This article is not encyclopedic. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add on, prior precedent from here and here can be applied. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. I could logically see some reason to merge it into Windows 11 and mention a possible future version, but unless Microsoft themself state they have already begun planning for/developing a Windows 12 it wouldn't be much and would still violate WP:CRYSTAL. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 'sources' for this are spec articles and Google-bombed junk, along with non-surprising things like Windows 12 is expected to have new features not seen in Windows 11. Also recommending this be locked from re-creation until proper sourcing exists. Nate • (chatter) 20:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is literally just whoever wrote the article guessing based on a Windows Central report (which I doubt is actually associated with Microsoft) and also the Deskmodder source was referring to a Tweet that was deleted and revealed to be a joke (shows that you can't trust everything you see on the internet) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. No source, no announcement, the TechAdvisor source does not mention Windows 12 releasing. Additionally, Windows 12 could just be Windows 11 24H2. --HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's only rumors at this point and not people writing about how notable these rumors are. Skynxnex (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To add further evidence, the draft for this article has been rejected 8 times and experienced vocal opposition before the page was published.Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also been rejected, all the more reason to delete it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as premature crystal. There is nothing here other than speculation, and even the name might change to something like "Windows 2024" or some later date. --Mvqr (talk) 11:06, 10 January 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!} 17:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Razaque[edit]

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

Not notable. I've found instances where the user who started this page attempted to add themselves as giving a reaction as a notable figure in the Qandeel Baloch page. It is also wise to suggest the user Chrisbroad34 is also him. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chrisbroad34) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qandeel_Baloch&diff=1131599620&oldid=1128133866

Don't ask why I am being so militant in this. I'm just that bored and I go to this school. Gabbobler (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, and Pakistan. Gabbobler (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems not notable. CT55555(talk) 18:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NPROF, student awards and certificates doesn't make him notable. 4 out 5 references in Bibliography not making compatibility to each other. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a case of WP:TOOSOON as he fails to meet NPROF. These citations are in a very high citation field. --hroest 03:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. On a very basic level, the sources to do match the claims. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 11 January 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 South Tyrol#Demographics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southtyroleans[edit]

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

Poorly translated anti-Italian propaganda piece with terrible sourcing. I can't find much evidence that the article title is used in English, so it doesn't appear like a useful potential redirect. —Kusma (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe and Italy. —Kusma (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that (re-)draftification doesn't really seem like an option as the author already has two more drafts on this topic: Draft:South Tyroleans and Draft:Südtiroler. —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree the translation is poor and the tone is not neutral, but I suspect that the Sidtiroula may well be a "thing" i.e. an ethnic or nationalist group that are sufficiently notable to be mentioned either as a separate article or a section in one of several existing articles - see Category:South Tyrolean nationalism. What the editor needs is help in creating that in a neutral way that reads properly in English. As to the title, if there isn't a suitable English term such as South Tyrolese then we just use the native name and explain it. Some of his sources appear WP:RS e.g. Die Welt is a respectable German national newspaper. Bermicourt (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at my analysis of his sources on the talk page - the Welt article does not support his contentions. Surely there might be South Tyrolean identity and nationalism, but it is not based on the premise of a South Tyrolean "language" as the author supports, and I've seen no evidence that "Sitiroula" is a term used any differently than the German "Suedtiroler". Maybe South Tyroleans exclude Italians when they refer to them that way, but the same would be true in German.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Welt article is at best anecdotal evidence for the claim, not a usable source. Other articles are more opinion pieces than factual reporting, essentially unusable for a contentious topic like national identity. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Tyrol#Demographics. "South Tyroleans" (the correct spelling which already has a redirect) is the common demonym for the region, but to construe an "ethnicity" out of a regional population requires reliable sources that actually talk about a distinct "South Tyrolean" ethnic group, and not just the personal opinion of an editor on a campaign in various WP projects ([1], [2]). –Austronesier (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Tyrol#Demographics, per Austronesier. There's nothing in that article that can be saved.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Tyrol#Demographics, per Austronesier. Don't see any other option.--Pfold (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to South Tyrol#Demographics. I agree with the redirects above, but a very condensed version of this article should be merged. // Timothy :: talk 11:49, 12 January 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. Article has improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 15:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoel Drubin[edit]

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

Claim of importance appears overstated and cannot be verified via English language sources; no article in Hebrew Wikipedia. There is a passing mention of him in a book but no details about him as an "important founder" for Rishon LeZion. Support draftifying for interested editors to work on because notability claims cannot be backed up at present. Kazamzam (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: also some discrepancies with name spelling make the search for sources more difficult. I have seen Yo'el, Joel, Yitzhaq, Drobin, etc. Kazamzam (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a Google book search for “ יואל דרובין ראשון לציון” shows a number of results that look promising, though it would need a Hebrew reader to say whether they amounted to in depth coverage or not. Also found an English reference here and a passing mention here which suggests there may be more for those who know where to look. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the passing mention of him in a book that I mentioned. I can ping WP Israel and see if anyone wants to take a crack at it but otherwise I think this is a draft candidate since promising potential sources do not equal sources on the article itself. Kazamzam (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of notability, the article overstates the subject's importance versus the biography at the Rishon Museum. Since there is not much information other than importance, the article is best WP:TNTd without prejudice. On the upside, there is a street after him in Rishon and there is no WP:BLP concern. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added the birth and death year and the first reference since this article was created, just over 15 ago! gidonb (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!!! We at the Unreferenced articles project appreciate it greatly!! Kazamzam (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Thank you for your kind words!!! gidonb (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Bilu as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable role in the history of Jewish settlement in Palestine.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I found this article in such terrible shape that WP:TNT was in order after the text and ref improvement by Gila (kudos for your work!) and myself the article should be kept as meeting WP:BASIC. As a historical figure, there is absolutely no WP:BLP concern! gidonb (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to Geewhiz. Mccapra (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lithuania. gidonb (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also added a first image to our article. The article sets by now an example of how historical biographies should appear on WP. gidonb (talk) 15:03, 9 January 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 Louth County Council and then redirect. Clear consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dundalk Municipal District[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As I suggested before, municipal districts don't satisfy WP:NGEO as they are not entities separate from the county council, but are effectively an area committee of the county council. The list of councillors, changes, and definitions of LEAs are extracts from Louth County Council. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Not unlike the nominator, I'm not sure what this article is "for". The lead (confirming that the municipal district exists and is a sub-set of Louth County Council) can easily be covered in the Louth County Council article. The seat summary reads like WP:NOTSTATS content. And largely redundant anyway to Louth_County_Council#2019_seats_summary. The Dundalk_Municipal_District#Councillors_by_electoral_area is outdated. And redundant to 2014_Louth_County_Council_election#Results_by_Electoral_Area. The "Cathaoirleach" table isn't supported by the linked refs. And the table down the end seems redundant to the same table in Louth_County_Council#Local_Electoral_Areas_and_Municipal_Districts. To my mind, the article is largely redundant to other titles, and the title could easily be redirected Louth County Council. (I note that the only "keep" recommendation in the previous AfD suggested that a merge/redirect would unneccessarily expand and complicate the Louth County Council article. But, it seems to me, that most of the content is actually already there anyway...) Guliolopez (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. Several (if not all) of the WP:MERGEREASONs would seem to apply here. (In that the content is duplicated, same context is required, topics expressly overlap, etc.) As per my note above, what little content isn't already covered in the Louth County Council could be merged there. And this title redirected to that article. If we consider the subject here as a political geography topic (and it seems that most commenters here feel it is), such an ATD would align with WP:GEOLAND (which provides for a subset geo article to be covered in the superset article...). Guliolopez (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Municipal districts should not have individual articles. Spleodrach (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know what you think from the bolded "delete". The question is why shouldn't they? Surely they fall under WP:GEOLAND as populated, legally recognized places. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NGEO, and are better as apart of relevant council area. Spleodrach (talk)

But why do you think that they fail WP:NGEO? Are they not populated, legally recognized places? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - The article's subject meets WP:NGEO. The first criteria of WP:GEOLAND is Populated, legally recognized places. This is a populated and legally recognized place. That it's a smaller part of the larger county does not invalidate that; many legally recognized places are smaller divisions of larger regions. Yes, there's some overlap in the governing of the district with the governing of the county, but that's not a criteria or consideration of WP:NGEO in any way. If Municipal districts should not have individual articles then that should be discussed and changed at WP:NGEO, because the current guideline doesn't support that assertion. - Aoidh (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The town of Dundalk is a populated place, but is covered by its own article. Dundalk Municipal District is a subsidiary of County Louth. It's not a subdivision in the way that counties in Ireland were formally divided into second-tier urban and rural districts, which operated separately from the county-level local authority, (with rural districts dropped in 1925/1930, and urban districts becoming town councils in 2002). There were separate elections to the UDCs/RDCs/TCs. This is not the case for municipal districts: there's an election for Louth County Council, and those elected for the two Dundalk local electoral areas meet regularly in their local Dundalk Municipal District, as well as the County Council. To take the legislation that created them, s. 19 of the 2014 Act, "Subject to subsection (4), every county and city and county set out in Part 1 and Part 3, respectively, of Schedule 5 shall have 2 or more districts", and the wider context of that Act, the municipal districts act as internal units within the local government area, rather than separate entities in themselves. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I struck my above comment because while it does meet WP:GEOLAND, I admit I was looking at it in isolation and on its own merits, but didn't consider the duplication of content. I think a redirect to Louth County Council would be warranted until there's enough content written for it to be split out into its own article. The subject itself is notable and on that point it warrants a standalone article, but what's currently there isn't enough to justify it. I do want to stress though that WP:GEOLAND is met here; that it's a smaller part of a larger division is not a relevant distinction for WP:GEOLAND. - Aoidh (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I was going to suggest Keep, as, per Aoidh, this satisfies WP:NGEO, as far as I can see. However, as pointed out by Guliolopez, the contents here seem to be largely redundant, un- or poorly cited, and/or out-of-date. Better to have a properly maintained Louth County Council article rather than several poorly maintained LEA ones. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also a very strong agreement with @Guliolopez in that I don't see what the article is "for". As regards WP:NGEO, I think that this area is a "place" only in the absolute loosest of definitions. Moreover, it states that these places are typically notable, not always.

Xx78900 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't think it's a necessary redirect tbh Xx78900 (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the information here is a duplication of information on Louth County Council, and a merge and redirect makes sense to avoid WP:CONTENTFORKING. What do we think of the list of Cathaoirligh? Is it significant enough to warrant inclusion at all (I'm not necessarily convinced, again given the hierarchy of the municipal district compared to the county council)? If so, could it be a standalone article, short at first, but one that would be expanded? It could then also be expanded backwards, to include Cathaoirligh of the old UBC and Town Council, as we have for pages in Category:Lists of mayors of places in Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really necessary or WP:DUE? Ultimately it's nothing more than a sub-committee of the relevant county council, not much different from, say, their transport committee, housing committee, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:18, 9 January 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 Edmonton Light Rail Transit. Clear consensus against a standalone article; the only argument to keep has been rebutted by the argument that the content can adequately be covered elsewhere. The redirect target I've used is the one listed here, but the content appears to have been merged elsewhere; further talk page discussion as to the best target may be needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Future Station[edit]

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

Not notable, and the only source is a youtube video. Artem.G (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Edmonton LRT article. Nothing found for a stand-alone article, interesting fact in the Edmonton LRT article perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge to Edmonton Light Rail Transit Meters (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to merge this as the entire content was also added to List of Edmonton LRT stations. Meters (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom is being misleading about the "Youtube video". It's from the Edmonton Journal, a reliable source. I also found one other piece of coverage from a local magazine, so theres enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 20:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there's nothing wrong with the Edmonton Journal YouTube video as a source. And I'm open to keeping this, but it needs to be clarified. It's really not a station with future usage planned as List of Edmonton LRT stations claims. It was envisioned as a future station and it was partially built, but it was never a completed station, there are no plans to ever complete it, and the space has been reallocated. Meters (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This station has never been operational or been a part of the Edmonton LRT system. While its existence can be verified, there's no indication that it's in any way notable. This can adequately be covered in a sentence or two at Edmonton Light Rail Transit. 162 etc. (talk) 01:20, 6 January 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 Warhammer 40,000#T'au. ✗plicit 14:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T'au Empire[edit]

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

This is a lengthy plot summary with some comments about related miniature games, but the topic sadly seems to fail WP:GNG. The few references cited (note the article is mostly unreferenced, with much WP:OR to be concerned about) are not independent and come from game books, fan of semi-official blogs or in one case, the White Dwarf magazine published by the same company that publishes the game. BEFORE shows any how-to-play (or paint, or mod) guides for this factin, but nothing that suggests the faction is notable outside of the game. The best WP:ATD I can suggest would be merging some referenced content to Warhammer_40,000#T'au (a section which appears unreferenced). I'll end by saying similar merge and redirects have been done to a number of other WH40K factions (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necron (Warhammer 40,000)) and arguably should be done for the remainder. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main WH40K article, just unnecessary plotcruft. Dronebogus (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Warhammer 40,000#T'au. The sources I could find are all about the wider Warhammer 40,000 IP and this article's subject is discussed as an aspect of that wider subject, such as reviews of their specific Codex (rulebook) or the faction being included in games. I'm very familiar with 40K and there are wikis like Lexicanum that go into more in-universe detail than would be appropriate at Wikipedia (T'au Empire and T'au) so there are already websites where this level of cruft is appropriate and appreciated, but per Wikipedia's notability guidelines it doesn't warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. BOZ (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Topic seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 9 January 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 14:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Raza Bukhari[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement. An impressive h-Index of 1 and a total of 3 citations and no in-depth coverage certainly certainly meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPROF. Too junior to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF, no sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student awards explicitly do not pass WP:PROF and there appears to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO, also Awards and Research section references are not compatible to the content. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NPROF. Not yet notable. Bruxton (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an ordinary university student. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 11 January 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 14:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Khatami[edit]

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

He is only the son of former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami and does not confirm the Wikipedia:Notability NameGame (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NameGame (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it’s being PRODed in fa.wiki too for lack of notability. Mccapra (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is true. plus the admin fa:کاربر:Sunfyre deleted it by WikiFa users' decision in 2020: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی برای حذف/سید عمادالدین خاتمی - NameGame (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Son of any Head of State doesn't passes WP:GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NOTINHERITED. "As of 2009, he was out of public spotlight." Party officials, especially nepo party chairs, are not notable. He has not been in the media. The parent of a head of state, if involved in their education, can be notable, but not the child. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 11 January 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 14:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot Stix[edit]

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

This company doesn't appear notable, the best I could turn up on a WP:BEFORE was a paragraph in Field & Stream from 2007. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Canada. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few mentions in mags such as F&S but nothing in-depth that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and wow promotional. I find this link in the Smithsonian but it talks about the material [3] the fishing rod is made from, not for the company itself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: good find! I wonder if there's enough about the material to make a separate article about that. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There might be, I didn't look that far. It's an interesting concept, carrots to plastic. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know, it already exists! I think there's room for improvement though. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 04:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP. Having studied and written on hunting licenses and fishing, and that my domestic partner owns a dozen fishing rods, I'm somewhat familiar with the brand names. I never heard of this. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 11 January 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 Prokop of Moravia with the option of merging worthwhile content. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George of Luxembourg[edit]

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

There don't seem to be any reliable sources about this George of Luxembourg, and even if he would be verifiable, he hardly did anything noteworthy. The source given is a master's thesis, which is normally not accepted as a reliable source. Even then, it names a Jiri, no last name, and doesn't mention the inheritance. He just existed, if we are to believe this source, but isn't notable. Fram (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and Luxembourg. Fram (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of an assertion of notability. I would also note that he's been present as a link from Prokop of Moravia since the article was created last year by the same author. There's a number of references listed there but all lack in-line citations and I'm unable to read Czech or access Czech books. If anyone is capable of doing a WP:BEFORE perusal of those it might be fruitful. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding I'm also ok with a merge presuming we can get some source of his existence beyond the master's thesis. --(loopback) ping/whereis 18:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll agree that I did source this article inadequately - I used the one reference I had quick access to after translating the unsourced Czech article. Fwiw, the thesis cites Moravský markrabě Jošt (1354-1411) by Václav Štěpán for the claim. Searching 'Jiří Lucemburský' (Czech for George of Luxembourg) yields some more hits, such as in Lucemburkové by Jan Bauer, which states "Poslední Lucemburk po meči byl zřejmě Jiří Lucemburský, nemanželský syn markraběte Prokopa, který zemřel jako benediktinský mnich v klášteře v Monte Cassinu". (My search was picking up text from a cs.wiki mirror, whoops!) As for notability, I assumed being the last living member of the very notable House of Luxembourg was worthy of inclusion. Mbdfar (talk)
Best I can find digitized is another thesis that states George was a bastard of Prokop who became a monk and died in Augsburg in 1457, citing Lucemburkové: česká koruna uprostřed Evropy by Šmahel and Bobková (2012) for the claim. Unfortunately, I do not have direct access to either Lucemburkové or Moravský markrabě Jošt mentioned above. Anyway, I'm sure the only son of the Margrave of Moravia was notable to contemporaries, but it seems few sources mentioning him have been digitized. Mbdfar (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prokop of Moravia where all the content in this stub already exists. Mccapra (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prokop of Moravia. Srnec (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prokop of Moravia. This article contains a little on this subject's career, which would be worth adding to that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whoa whoa whoa a master's thesis isn't a reliable source? Then why do we have Template:Cite thesis? Don't professors usually engage pretty heavily with theses submitted with their names referenced as "advisor," which is kinda like a peer review except it's a boss review? I'm so confused. jengod (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, third bullet point, especially the last sentence. Fram (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 I guess merge is fine but isn't being an endling of a family they named a whole country after kinda inherently notable? jengod (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED, there are very few things which are considered inherently notable, and happening to be (perhaps, unverified) the last member of a family which once gave its name to a country (but personally having nothing to do with that) is not sufficient, no. Fram (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 I'm also concerned we're exhibiting bias against non-English-lang sources here. Here some articles we have about noble-born monks or nuns who were not otherwise particularly famed for their accomplishments etc: Paweł Dembski, Andrzej Spot, Catherine of Portugal (nun), Joan of Navarre (nun), Princess Charlotte of Monaco (1719–1790), Ferenc Farkas (Jesuit priest), Jīva (nun), Louise of Savoy (nun), Bridget of York, Mary of Woodstock, Princess Seishi, etc. jengod (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No such bias on my part, I use such sources all the time. But no good sources have been presented here, English or not. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, frustrating as it may be. Other articles may be worse (or not, I haven't checked) and be left alone, and this one get's AfD'ed. That's the luck of the draw, we try to enforce our policies and guidelines somewhat consistently but especially among older articles there is still a lot of work to do. Fram (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK well you do you. jengod (talk) 15:57, 12 January 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 delete. I went ahead and deleted under WP:CSD#G5 in light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArianaRaykotto: sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry to promote a non-notable person, which was seemingly admitted by the creator. Noting that consensus here was also moving towards delete. ^Complex/_Rational 20:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King Gug[edit]

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

Declined at AFC moved here by creator, I can find zero significant coverage anywhere, clearly fails WP:NSINGER Theroadislong (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources are sufficient to pass NSINGER. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO, given sources are all self-published, no evidence of significant coverage from actual reliable sources. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with somebody self publishing? I think you are referring the music being self published, if you are saying I am King Gug I am not. MaxAvery1999 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the banner until the discussion is closed. You are not neutral and this is disruptive. Star Mississippi 23:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to enforce AfC. NO evidence found that they currently meet N:MUSIC/BIO. Star Mississippi 14:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete paid for garbage, sourced to self published puff pieces and blackhat SEo.PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MaxAvery1999 is now open. Star Mississippi 14:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and resolved, thanks to @Girth Summit. The master was editing about Gug as well. I leave it to someone else whether this is enough for a G5 as I have already !voted. Star Mississippi 16:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's creator, MaxAvery1999, is a CU-confirmed sock of ArianaRaykotto, who was blocked for spamming about similar subjects last year. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:24, 7 January 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!} 07:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18 Philosophies[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic el.ziade (talkallam) 08:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails LIST and GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say redirect to Ayyappan but it seems like a very uncommon term for this ("18 steps" seems by far the most common). It does look like Ayyappan could be expanded with a bit more information about the tradition of the 18 steps. Skynxnex (talk) 15:51, 6 January 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 slave ships. Bit of a messy discussion. There is clear consensus against a standalone article. Redirecting to Bloom (ship) has some support, but isn't a policy-based option when only one of the three ships listed there would continue to have a standalone article. Some arguments for outright deletion suggest a merger isn't needed because the content has already been merged; but best as I can tell, that's true for Bloom (ship), not the list; and we've determined that Bloom (ship) is a poor target. One argument recommends deleting this and a list, but it's unclear which list is referred to; if it's the DAB page, that doesn't change anything; if it's the list of slave ships, that's going to be a very hard sell. As such I'm redirecting to the only other target mentioned here per ATD-R, and leaving open the option of merging, but I will note that this discussion does not preclude future retargetting after a talk page discussion or RfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom (1789 ship)[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability, just one of the thousands of slave ships in a database (plus some primary sources). Fram (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The slave-voyages website offers WP:SIGCOV. Also per WP:ATD there is a merge option here: Bloom (ship). Desertarun (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a database, not an actual text about the ship. And merging a non-notable ship to a list of three non-notable ships is not a useful ATD, it's just an attempt to keep this at a different place even if it still suffers from the same issues. Fram (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The slave voyages site itself sources some information cited to a secondary source, History of the Liverpool Privateers and Letters of Marque with an Account of the Liverpool Slave Trade (London, 1897) by Gomer Williams available here. There's three pages (606-609) that deal with the Bloom, including working out what the average sale price of the slaves worth, profit to the boat's owners and some other background. Don't believe it meets GNG but its more then just a database so I felt the need to mention it as part of a WP:BEFORE hunt. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@127(point)0(point)0(point)1: That source is actually about the previous Bllom (the 1781 ship), and discussed the 1784 voyage that ship made. So not relevant for this ship or AfD (but I understand the confusion, as the two ships had the same name and same owners). Fram (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent catch! So back to the BEFORE search turning up... zero sources. Changes this from a comment to a Delete. --(loopback) ping/whereis 11:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bloom (ship) per the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_(1806_ship). The outcome there was "redirect to List of slave ships with the option of merging any encyclopedic content" and the eventual result was that the content was merged to James (ship), which was the better merge/redirect target. The same outcome is appropriate here. Jfire (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Bloom (ship)~~ List of slave ships. I did find a paragraph in a book about the slave trade. This book has a page and a half that shows the investment shares and earnings for a slave-trade voyage. The information in these is probably not enough for a stand-alone article but will provide a solid basis for a section in the Bloom ship article. Lamona (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are statements in the article that are not in the sources, as far as I can tell. For example, the Elder book has three very brief mentions only. There are statements of fact with no sourcing like "A French privateer captured King Grey in 1793." In addition, I'm not at all sure what that is doing in this article. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: please look at the dates in those two sources. These are for the 1781 ship, and not about the 1789 ship. Fram (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, @Fram:, was that the dates refer to specific voyages, not different ships. If that understanding is correct, then it's easily handled in the Bloom (ship) article. If we can establish that it was a different ship, then at best this information would be appropriate in the list of slave ships (actually not a bad idea, since it doesn't appear there). Lamona (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the 1789 isn't a different ship than the 1781 ship, then it should be redirected there. But it seems to be a different ship, and all sources about pre-1789 voyages are not about this one. Fram (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- also the 1781 ship article and the list. All no doubt verifiable, but all NN. There were 1000s of merchant ships of the period, and it would need there to be something special about any one of them to make it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication of notability for this ship. It is sourced entirely to databases or primary sources. A merge is irrelevant because there's already sufficient information at the proposed target. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:08, 9 January 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!} 07:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Air Show[edit]

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

In September 2020, the government issued a press release saying they would put on an air show the next year. Then they held a launch event in November for a website for said show, rescheduled for February 2022. Then in September 2021 they announced that it would be postponed again because of COVID-19. My searches found no evidence that it has taken place or is currently planned.

At each step the press has dutifully parroted the official announcements, but without adding any analysis, evaluation, or interpretation. There are no truly independent secondary sources that contain significant coverage about the future event. If it ever gets off the ground, such sources are likely to be written, but this article was created too soon. It was PRODed at the time, but the original author removed the tag. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and should not have an article about this just because the promoters said it might happen someday. Worldbruce (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while announcements of the event are reliably sourced, the event hasn't happened and so isn't worthy of a page. This can all be covered in one sentence on Bangladesh Air Force and/or Cox's Bazar International Airport. Page can be recreated if the event actually happens. FWIW the original creator account is globally locked. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:57, 6 January 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!} 05:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boy (upcoming film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The film fails all the criteria of notability guidelines for films.

There is no significant coverage of this film in reliable sources so it fails general notability criteria as well.

What was mistaken to be significant coverage in previous AfD, is actually press releases, and some promotional/paid articles. After doing some searching, there are no recent updates, or coverage about the film in reliable sources.

On other note, the creator of this article is blocked for socking, and for UPE. Some of their articles were related to film industry. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Draftify. This upcoming film that is postponed indefinitely fails WP:NFF, the general WP:NFILM criteria, or WP:GNG, as the articles appear to be routine announcements that fail WP:SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF with no indication it will ever be released. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFF. When will it be released? No clue. Sarrail (talk) 22:23, 5 January 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!} 05:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mongsueprou Chowdhury[edit]

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

Article about a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claims here are that he's a former president of a student union and district chairman of a local political party chapter, neither of which are NPOL-passing offices, and the referencing is a mixture of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that aren't support for notability at all with glancing namechecks of his existence in news stories that aren't about him in any meaningful sense, which don't help to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear NPOL fail. Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NPOL and WP:SNOW. The clear consensus is that local and young party officials are not notable because there are so many of them. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 11 January 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 Circle (Finnish band)#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arkades[edit]

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

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music). I couldn't find any reliable sources on Wikipedia library or google. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Finland. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Circle_(Finnish_band)#Live_albums: the most I could find was this AllMusic review. Doesn't appear to be any other reliable coverage. Not very surprising for a random live album from a seemingly not-very-famous (though I have heard of them before) experimental rock band. QuietHere (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere. On the Circle (Finnish_band)#Discography, all of the blue links in albums have 0-1 sources with no sign of notability, they were all created by the same person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpingWorld (talk • contribs) 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Many of the band's album articles could be redirected to their main article, after sitting around for years with deficient sources and little info beyond basic track listings. Someone could try that as a bold project, or discuss the others in their own nominations. This here discussion has to focus on "Arkades" for procedural purposes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)
Redirect to Circle (Finnish band)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:32, 7 January 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 was keep. (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discover Pakistan TV[edit]

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

WP:PROMOTIONAL article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I would not say that this article is quite promotional, but could use some better sources. Overall, weak keep. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hotel room channel; unless somehow there's news and opinion programming on what is something designed to sell the country to someone already there, there's no WP:N that can be mined here as the programming loops and never changes, thus a native will likely only watch this network once. Nate • (chatter) 02:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at other TV channel articles, Discover Pakistan TV is the official satellite tv Channel here is a list: https://theasiadialogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/list_of_licences_issued_stv.pdf
I dont think so the article is promotional, Rest you guys can decide.
Thank you. Ihaiders1 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://theasiadialogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/list_of_licences_issued_stv.pdf

Please See:

https://www.techjuice.pk/discover-pakistan-pakistans-first-only-tourism-tv-channel-goes-live/

https://www.nation.com.pk/20-Jul-2021/pemra-chairman-visits-discover-pakistan-channel Ihaiders1 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that editor User:Ihaiders1 has a Conflict of Interest for this topic. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Please double check if it promotional or not. Thanks. Ihaiders1 (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I used the program details mentioned on their website, ( Names of the programs ) but removed as source was not proper. I didn't mentioned about the Ex Prime Minister of Pakistan "Imran Khan" vision about this channel, please check this source. https://www.bolnews.com/tag/discover-pakistan-tv-channel/ Do you this this should be the part of the article? As I already tagged my self having an conflict of interest with this Channel, But I wanted to contribute to the encyclopedia because its "'First Tourism TV" in Pakistan & has a Significant Media coverage, I tried to provide all the information with available resources and Links.

I hope the community will improve it better. Thank you. Ihaiders1 (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has some significant media coverage as the first tourist TV channel in Pakistan:

Insight 3 (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has significant news media coverage in both English and Urdu languages. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an informative article having significant media coverage. Comply with the conditions regarding sources. Lillyput4455 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do have a conflict of interest with this TV channel, I read other articles on TV channels in Pakistan, and I feel Discover Pakistan TV should be on the encyclopedia. I still feel it needs some improvement. here are some sources which will help you guys understand. I am attaching links from Pakistan's Top New websites.

1- https://www.bolnews.com/tag/discover-pakistan-tv-channel/ 2- https://lifeinpakistan.net/discover-pakistan-a-tourism-focused-satellite-tv-channel-launched/ 3- https://beam.pk/discover-pakistan-tourism-tv-channel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaiders1 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I might be introducing my own opinion here but I'd like to see additional support to retain an ~~infomercial~~ infotainment channel. They are typically not considered encyclopedic because they are purely commercial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just want to give a small input, According to "Pemra" Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. Discover Pakistan TV is an Satellite TV channel Falls in "Tourism" & Infotainment Category with Information & entertainment programs. Its not infomercial channel. https://pemra.gov.pk/uploads/licensing/stv/list_of_licences_issued_stv.pdf

List of television channels in Pakistan Ihaiders1 (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will at least agree with this; it's not a paid programming channel but a promotional tourist information channel. There is a difference between the two types of channels. Nate • (chatter) 01:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my mistake. I mixed up "infomercial" with "infotainment." Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Ihaiders1. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. In-depth coverage exists about this channel in English as well as in Urdu language sources as shown by User:Insight 3. 122.58.130.227 (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable article. 111.119.177.41 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 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 Polish resistance. This AFD discussion is all over the map but I'm going to close it with the suggestion to transform the title into a redirect as an ATD. Should good sources appear in the future, the article can be recovered and improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leśni[edit]

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

This article (which is a target of the Polish partisans redirect) hasn't been significantly improved in 15 years, and arguably is an WP:OR-ish treatment of a concept of Polish non-urban resistance in World War II. It does not have a Polish interwiki, and my search for the term "leśni" did not find any SIGCOV; I located two Polish scholarly article using the term in the title but a search within them did not show that they even discuss it in the body, The only properly referenced sentence (book with page number) was added by me long time ago (I just merged it to a relevant article); the other referenced part (books without page numbers) is a summary of the story of Henryk Dobrzański. In this sorry state I am afraid the article has issues with OR/V, and as a treatment of the Polish non-urban WWII resistance, it's so poor it merits WP:TNT. The best WP:ATD I can think of is to redirect this to Polish resistance, as Polish partisans in forests existed in other periods too (and in fact the two Polish scholarly articles are found talk about post-WWII era cursed soldiers anyway). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alternatively, redirect. Renata•3 04:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per nom to Polish resistance. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I would really prefer to see this rewritten into an article about Polish resistance operations in the forests, rather then see this disappear. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Polish resistance article might be a good idea, we can always do a split later if more and better info turns up. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b There is nothing to merge, all content is already in other relevant articles (or unreferenced). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Polish resistance movement in World War II. The only substantive material appears (perhaps more briefly) in its 1940 section. Possibly the explanation of the name of this article needs to be added to that one somewhere. It is the equivalent of the French resistance becing called Maquis (which refers to woods or scrubland, where they could hide). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If Piotrus thinks it can't be salvaged, I am confident it can't be. Srnec (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different proposed redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom's suggestion to Polish resistance as it appears to be a reasonable search term. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term is not a plausible search term. The quoted meaning has possibly been invented by the author of one of the works referenced in the article. Content-wise, nothing to merge either. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polish resistance as a plausible search term. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:31, 10 January 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 15:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors[edit]

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

No sources found online, fails WP:GNG TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 00:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google shows some sources in Danish, including academic sources. I think this article should be improved, rather than deleted. QuintinK (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if no work has been done, it may not be done for some time. Someone should translate and get to work sourcing, if not, delete if we can't find more. Weak keep for now. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There is no significant coverage, even in Danish. There are only one-line mentions in articles about something else. BruceThomson (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there have been no additions to the article, if you know of sources to address the nominator's statement, please mention them here instead of just saying they exist in a Google search.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 5 January 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. There are a few poor arguments here: CSD#A7 definitely does not apply to a law firm, and when the sources cited as meeting SIGCOV have been challenged, a bare statement that the topic meets GNG doesn't go very far. Among the rest of the comments there seems to be genuine disagreement about the precise level of depth required for a source to count toward NCORP, but given the numerical tilt among those, and also two comments that stop short of saying "delete" but note weaknesses with the claim to notability, consensus here is for deletion. I would remind all editors that with SIGCOV or NCORP, each source being cited as counting toward a notability criterion needs to meet all the relevant sub-criteria; that is, we need multiple sources that are each, individually, reliable and independent and substantive. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ater Wynne[edit]

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

Questionable notability - may violate WP:CORPDEPTH. This seems like an every snowflake is unique situation. They don't seem to be involved in anything actually notable, just trade news and commercial real estate transactions. The firm that abosorbed this firm had their wikipedia article previously deleted for lack of notability. (Arguably WP:A7, but I thought it deserved more debate.) QuintinK (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oregon, Washington, Law, and Organizations. sig QuintinK (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a business history, nothing substantial found for sourcing.Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daily Journal of Commerce Oregon and Portland Business Journal seem like exactly the sorts of spots we'd expect to see NCORP coverage. The Oregonian is the city's paper of record. Coverage already extant meets NCORP and GNG, which suggests the parent organization's deletion may need to be reexamined. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article includes citations from legitimate news sources. My thinking is that it violates Wikipedia:A7, in that the article never claims there is anything per se notable about the law firm or its history. It was affiliated with some notable individuals, but there's nothing I see that's obviously notable about the law firm itself. QuintinK (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not that, as in it is not if the topic is famous, important, or popular, which appears to be your criteria. Instead, notability is when a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think it has, but that is a different debate than if they were involved in a famous case or "anything actually notable". Aboutmovies (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a far cry for A7. Merely being a "law firm" with multiple partners and important clients is enough to dodge that speedy deletion criterion. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability, so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but I wrote the article. In sum, I try not to write non-notable entries. I research them first to ensure there is solid notability, unless they have something that makes them automatically notable like they are a state legislator. In this case, that included non open web-based articles, which totaled 6 out of the 21 sources. For those who are voting, did you look at any of those articles to be able to actually see if WP:CORPDEPTH was met on those articles? Did the nominator doing any independent checking of sources and look for more as we often require for notability purposes before nominating? Just like notability is not inherited, the fact that the firm that absorbed them was deleted has no bearing. Also, "They don't seem to be involved in anything actually notable" is not criteria and would be an inherited trait that we should not be using as criteria for inclusion as well. The fact is, as a project we have done a poor job of covering law firms. When I see a large firm that has been around awhile make the news and we have no article, I used to take the time to write one. As to notable cases, there are 297 cases in which their name appears in Lexis (my firm only has 69 such results), and another 132 results in Lexis' legal news results (I have added more to the article based on those). There is adequate coverage for notability when you do the research. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we really should not be too jumpy just to delete things. This meets WP:GNG from what I can see. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a commercial organization therefore WP:NORG criteria applies. For the most part, the sources are business listings, mentions or based on announcements or information provided by an executive or the company. Nothing significant and in-depth containing "Independent Content" defined as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. To respond to specific points raised by Keep !voters above - the coverage in the Daily Journal of Commerce Oregon and Portland Business Journal are base don announcements and have no "Independent Content" failing WP:ORGIND. The number of cases in which the law firm was "involved" does not form part of our criteria for establishing notability and those sources do not contain any "Independent Content" of significant in-depth information about the *company*. I'm happy to review my !vote if somebody points to a source (paragraph/page) which contains content that meet NORG criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article cites good legitimate news sources HeliosSunGod (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)sock strike[reply]

Yes ... yes it does. Unfortunately though, they merely regurgitate announcements. Can you link to specific references you believe meet NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No those do not regurgitate announcements. No entity in their right mind would put out press releases that they settled lawsuits by paying money to the plaintiff(s), were being sued for malpractice, or were being investigated by a government regulatory entity for ethics violations. They might put out a press release after the news gets ahold of it, but that's different. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's really cute. The reality is that most professional "entities" (especially lawfirms) want to "take control of the narrative" whether it is good news or bad. Leaving that aside, if you read the sources it isn't very difficult to see the vacuous nature of the content, relying entirely on quotations and attributions to the firm or their executives. Tell you what. Point me to any source/paragraph which you believe meets NCORP criteria and we will take a look. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing legit sources is insufficient if their coverage is only of a passing nature and not indepth. UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Aboutmovies: A general observation is that there is a writing problem here: As multiple editors have commented, the article seems to focus a lot on trivial, routine background information about a law firm, rather than making any kind of notability claim. For what it's worth, I've now added a notability claim (first law firm in Portland with a woman's name in its title), but that's based on one (local) source. If you have access to Lexis, one possible avenue for research is to see if you can find anything else about the firm's historical stance toward women lawyers/partners that is interesting. (And on that note, if the article is kept, it would definitely be worth adding a sentence or two on the late Carol Hewitt, who was a senior partner.) So far you've highlighted maybe one of the controversial cases that the firm was involved in (where they became a defendant), but there appear to be a few more of those that were high-profile and could help to make the case for (historical) notability as well, particularly if you are able to explain the specific role that the firm played within those cases, not just the fact that they happened to represent certain clients. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: as noted above, that is not notability. For the love of whatever people pray to, notability on Wikipedia has never been about the notable things people/things did, such as the first this or that. It is about in-depth coverage of the topic in RS. Yes, typically people/things who do notable things end up being notable because the media then takes notes, providing the coverage/RS, but it never matters if the people/things actually do anything notable itself. For example, we have articles on every town and community, not because they did something notable, but because they are covered in RS. As to depth, I added a bunch last week that are behind paywalls that I doubt anyone has checked. Several of them provided the depth needed, but hey, let's judge without researching the topic. As to the writing style, that is what a firm has done. Not everything they do is notable, but notability has NEVER been about we only cover the notable things within the article. That directly contradicts our very long held WP:NNC. In articles we cover what people/entities do that is covered in RS. A politician is married and has kids rarely is notable in itself, but it is standard information you include in a biography. Most details in your run of the mill state legislator are not notable by themselves, same with what companies do. With law firms, who are the attorneys, what cases they handle (whether or not there is an article does not matter), what names have they gone by, and even where do they have offices is important information that should be covered. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aboutmovies I was leaning toward "keep" before but given what you've just said, I'm now leaning toward "delete". Cielquiparle (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you take that personally and have that influence your decision instead of the actual criteria. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually was genuinely trying to help and no, I won't be !voting in this AfD. Peace. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cases filed have nothing to do with notability. There is no independent, in-depth analysis by reliable media for it. No sources are shared in the discussion, which proves it is notable. Lordofhunter (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lordofhunter: as noted above, your argument of "Cases filed have nothing to do with notability" is not what notability is on Wikipeida. For the love of whatever people pray to, notability on Wikipedia has never been about the notable things people/things did, such as the first this or that. It is about in-depth coverage of the topic in RS. Yes, typically people/things who do notable things end up being notable because the media then takes notes, providing the coverage/RS, but it never matters if the people/things actually do anything notable itself. "There is no independent, in-depth analysis by reliable media for it." Yes there are, but you have to look behind paywalls, as the firm was started pre-web. "No sources are shared in the discussion, which proves it is notable." Huh? While some editors do that, I instead do the proper thing of actually editing the article to include them. As to depth, I added a bunch last week that are behind paywalls that I doubt anyone has checked as access is limited. Several of them provided the depth needed. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two more articles that are entirely about the firm's actions by Nigel Jaquiss, who won a Pulitzer Prize for work around the same time as these two articles:
City Slams Ater Wynne

Playing Both Sides?

These were in the Willamette Week, which again, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both those articles are "coverage", both refer to the topic company facing a complaint and investigation by the bar over their conduct but the articles are simply regurgitating details of the complaint. This coverage is neither significant nor in-depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) and it certainly does not provide any "Independent Content" (WP:ORGIND). I previously requested that Keep !voters provide sources (including page/para numbers) which satisfy NCORP criteria for establishing notability, neither of these meet the criteria. I've accessed a number of the "paywall" sources (e.g. The Portland Business Journal, The Oregonian), those too are simply regurgitating announcements and the article is now in danger of being WP:REFBOMBED (36 references, the majority of which concern announcements, none of which meet ORGIND). HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to agree to disagree, as per WP:ORGIND that you cite to: "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." The Willamette Week is independent of the law firm, unless you think the law firm put out a press release that they were being investigate by the Bar? And I can tell you that Bar investigations that get to a formal complaint are not routine. There are about 5 attorneys per month on the naughty list in the Bar Bulletin out of 15k attorneys, and you only get listed there after discipline has been dished out. Now, are either 150 page books on the topic, no, but that is not needed.
We will also have to disagree as to significant coverage as well, as you seem to want a 150 page book or something. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Trivial mentions are as all of our guidelines cover, something like ... the company elevated Mr. Foo as the new boss, who has been with the company for 40 years and is a swell guy. The WW coverage is not trivial, and is significant (as are these: [4][5][6][7][8]). Not as significant as a book or a two-hour documentary on the law firm, but not trivial under the guidelines. Most articles blend both trivial mentions and significant coverage in order to flesh out an article. I use very brief mentions to help build details needed for a proper biography all the time, as some people are notable, but not notable enough for Stephen E. Ambrose to write a biography (if he were still alive).
Lastly, The Oregonian is a regional, multiple Pulitzer Prize winning paper that is 170 years old. All the O articles have a byline by professional journalists, and since several are about things not exactly good for the firm, I think its safe to say those are actually independent. The PBJ, yes, some of those articles are reguritations of press releases (those typically do not have byline to a person so those are easy to spot), but again I think we can all agree the firm would not have put out a press release saying they settled a lawsuit filed against them. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response It appears unlikely we will reach an agreement based on your response. Nevertheless I'll attempt to provide an answer to the points you've raised but I don't intend to continue to respond to points which are more your personal opinion or wikilawyering than based on any of our guidelines.

It isn't just ORGIND, it is the entirety of the relevant NCORP guidelines. For example, where precisely is the CORPDEPTH in any of the Willamette articles (that discuss the topic company in detail)? As to ORGIND in particular, it is very obvious that the information in those articles (mainly made up of quotes and attributions) is sourced from persons who are connected to the company and/or have a "vested interest" in the outcome of the dispute. Also, if you check the section right above ORGIND you will find WP:ILLCON which states It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline. This topic company doesn't meet the WP:CRIME guidelines either. I also find it very un-NPOV to see that there's no mention in the article of the fact that the state bar dismissed the complaint. It is almost as if the author(s) of this article have an axe to grind don't you think?
Your second point mixes up "quantity" with "quality". As per WP:SIRS, *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - we don't take a quantity of "coverage" and merge each part to form a new whole. Also, those are all based on company announcements, therefore not intellectually independent - in other word, once you remove the parts that fail ORGIND, the remaining content fails CORPDEPTH. But to address your question (and the obvious strawman), nobody is looking for a 150 page book either. We simply require an article which is significant/in-depth and contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If a company is truly notable, somebody somewhere in some publication will have written something in-depth and intellectually independent about them.
Your description of The Oregonian is the reason why it 1) the newspaper is notable and has its own article and 2) is considered a WP:RS. Nothing more. It doesn't confer some sort of automatic significance to their content or their journalists. Relying on their history to assume that all of their articles are "actually independent" is not supported anywhere in our guidelines. You should also be aware that there is a difference between sources that may be used to support facts/information *within* an article (as you've described) and sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability. You may (of course) use any WP:RS to support the information/facts/etc presented within the content of an article, but the criteria for sources used to establish notability are very different, which is what we are discussing here.

I see the number of references has now risen to 37. The easiest way for you to convince others that references exist which meet NCORP criteria is to link your WP:THREE best sources and by referencing specific paragraphs, point to why they meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I disagree. I think you are confusing significant coverage with being a very large amount of coverage, which is not what WP:SIRS or WP:CORPDEPTH actually state. If you read CORPDEPTH under "Significant coverage" it says: "Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." (emphasis added). I have pointed out multiple times which articles go beyond brief (aka trivial) mentions or routine announcements. "... the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." If you really study what we mean by trivial mentions, you will notice a theme: inclusion in lists (such as best of lists), a list of tenants in a new building, a mention in an article of people running for a political office, new destinations from a particular airline; end stop. But, if that list of the ten best new restaurants in foo in 2023 also includes two paragraphs of text discussing the cuisine, then it is no longer trivial. I know you would never agree, but that has always been my take on what trivial means. You disagree, I disagree, we all scream for ice scream. Bottomline, your interpretation of trivial is different than mine.
As to three, I listed a bunch before, and I don't care about an essay. As to the reliability of The Oregonian, that was not attempting to directly state anything about notability. That was in response to your quip of "and it certainly does not provide any "Independent Content"". My point with talking about that newspaper and the Willamette Week was to say, no, those are independent per WP:ORGIND. There are few ways for one to get information about a company that did not start with something coming from a company. You want to know when it was founded, you can go to the Sec. of State (at least in most states) and look it up, but that piece of information started with the company filing some sort of formation document. How much in revenue, at some point that comes from the company's books. And that is why by independent we have never meant completely independent. The author of the news article can take the info from topic, and as long as the do some of their own research, then it is independent for reliability/notability purposes (which WP:ORGIND basically says). For the WW article "City Slams Ater Wynne" as it says, the author took info from the bar complaint, which was filed by the city which is independent of the topic. It then ends with "Ater Wynne's attorney Brad Tellam was unavailable for comment." That means, there was no input from the topic on the article, meaning WP:ORGIND would not apply. In the Oregonian article of "Ater Wynne law firm, Perkins & Co. accounting firm pay $14.65 million to settle lawsuit from burned Grifphon investors" the info came from the attorney who sued the topic, and while the topic did provide a quote, the author clearly went beyond just that info to make it pass WP:ORGIND. With the WW article Playing Both Sides?, again the author used information from the city in their article, making it pass WP:ORGIND. So, in a round about way, there are your three.
"an axe to grind don't you think?" - You think someone has an axe to grind about a law firm that no longer exists? More importantly is the fact that it was dismissed has been in the article for like 8 years, ref #21 for those scoring at home (so who is grinding an axe?). And, since the firm did not do anything criminal (ethics violations and being sued for malpractice are not crimes, as in no one goes to jail, you just get sued or disciplined) WP:CRIME guidelines would not apply, besides that CRIME applies to individuals, which why it is part of WP:NBIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm really not confusing NCORP guidelines. Rather than arguing over how to interpret guidelines in a generic fashion, we can instead look to apply the guidelines in a particular and focused manner, with specific sources in mind, which is why I've asked you to provide a link to sources that you believe meet NCORP. Notably, you acknowledged my request but avoided providing an answer. There's nothing more to say until we can discuss specifics. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks @HighKing for better articulating the concerns that led me to nominate the article. Although the article does have citations from reliable sources, the content in those sources seems to be trivial to me (hires, office opening, business announcements). There also seems to be a thread of argument in this discussion that the subject firm inherits notability from its notable attorneys or its involvement as legal counsel in notable events/cases, which would seem to disagree with WP:INHERITORG. Many citations are also from trade journals, which aren't valid for WP:NCORP. Many small/medium-sized businesses fail notability and law firms are no exception. I agree that an argument based on the three best sources would significantly help clarify if this meets the GNG. QuintinK (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These last two posts prove editors have not actually read what was posted in response. As to @QuintinK:, NO. That is exactly what I have been arguing against. Others have been !voting to delete (including your nomination, so I have no idea what your latest post is even supposed to be about) because the firm did not have any involvement in notable cases. I agree, that violates all inherited notability rules, and thus also cannot be a reason to delete an article, keep an article, send an article to bed without its dinner or anything else. As for @HighKing: I highlighted and italicized where I mention the "my best three" so you can find it since your edits above demonstrate an issue finding things. But again, we all know it doesn't matter to you, because you cannot even make a mea culpa over your accusation about an ax to grind (which violated AGF) about NPOV, an accusation the article history shows you were flat wrong about. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've asked three times for you to point to sources *and* paragraph numbers - the purpose being that you had the opportunity to say "Look, this paragraph is a detailed opinion of someone who is not an interested party or affailiated in any way with the company and which contains in-depth and significant information about the company". Instead you're still making very vague statements about the entirity of each article. OK, you're therefore saying all three contain in-depth information, are significant and detailed, contain "Independent Content" and therefore meet NCORP criteria. I disagree. Here's why, in detail, those sources fail NCORP

This Willamette Week source is 7 sentences. It is a report on the City of Portland accusing "founding partner Jonathan Ater" of a conflict of interest and includes quotes from a letter written to the state bar. There is no depth of coverage. CORPDEPTH defines deep or significant coverage as "an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis or evaluation of the company". This is absent from this article, so it fails CORPDEPTH. Not only that, you say "there was no input from the topic on the article, meaning WP:ORGIND would not apply" - that is incorrect. "Intellectual Independence" refers to "interested parties", not just the topic. A customer is an "interested party". This is also evident from the list in the section on "Secondary sources" which lists "customer testimonials or complaints" as PRIMARY sources. In order for this article to be a secondary source, the journalist must have provided their own "analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts and ideas" taken from the primary source. This is absent from this article. Finally, you say WP:CRIME does not apply. Please check out WP:ILLCON which says it is possible that sources will exist that discuss a topic company's alleged illegal conduct and sources "that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline" but however the orgnization may still be notable under different guidelines, e.g. CRIME. This article also fails ILLCON and CRIME. So in summary, this 7 sentence article which regurgitates a customer complaint on alleged illegal conduct is absent any in-depth information on the company (failing CORPDEPTH); is absent any "Independent Content" (failing ORGIND) and; has no content other than that primarily discussing allegedly illegal conduct (failing ILLCON). In other words, it fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
The BizJournals source is even shorter at 6 sentences long. It is an article about a settlement. For pretty much the same reasons as above, it also fails. It has no in-depth content about the company (which would be difficult in 6 sentences anyway) (fails CORPDEPTH) and it has no "Independent Content" as it does not offer any "original and independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation *about* the company (fails ORGIND). Arguably it also fails ILLCON.
This next from Willamette Week is a longer article with 18 sentences. It also simply regurgitates the complaint (in more detail) referred to in the first article above without offering any original/independent opinion/commentary/analysis from the journalist. It also does not provide any in-depth information on the company. Again, for the exact same reasons as above, this article fails CORPDEPTH, ORGIND and ILLCON.

Since these were your best THREE and none are even close to meeting NCORP guidelines, you have not convinced me that this company is notable. While you may have a different idea of how to interpret NCORP guidelines, I think those articles clearly fail without leaving any wriggle room for an argument. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this AFD discussion as comments are still coming. I recommend to the article creator, please present LINKS to your three best sources instead of burying them in a big box of text. You want to make them easy to see if you want to influence other participants here. You might feel like you are repeating yourself but answer questions arising about this article in a difrect and obvious way so now one can miss your point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like others here I find nothing notable about this company. As presented here, even with work to develop sourcing, it is simply a law firm. The presumed notability of being in the "top 20" (they were #20), well that is merely a list of firms by number of lawyers, which is just a bare statistic and, by the way, their 23 lawyers is a far cry from the #1 147. The other claim to fame is being the first in Portland to have a female partner in their name, that's obviously a positive statement about the company but there is no indication that this had an impact beyond the company itself. Nope, I don't find any notability. Lamona (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In case it's helpful, the strongest looking source for making the case for notability is probably:

MacKenzie, Bill (Oct 1, 1990). "OUT OF THE ASHES COMES ATER WYNNE". The National Law Journal: 33.

But it requires Lexis or library access to view. (If I had a copy, I would summarize, but I don't at the moment.) So really, it's just a question of whether there are one or two additional sources that can contribute to notability in the WP:NCORP sense. A couple of the articles appear to have already been discussed between Aboutmovies and HighKing above. Perhaps there are others? Cielquiparle (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cielquiparle, have you seen or read this article? Or a summary? In what way is it "helpful" and the "strongest looking source" for making "the case for notability"? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aboutmovies Do you have access to Lexis? If not, I can go to the library next week and get a copy? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cielquiparle and HighKing (and anyone else interested), I have LexisNexis access and can say that the "OUT OF THE ASHES COMES ATER WYNNE" source is a brief ~200-word announcement about a split at Lindsay, Hart, Neil & Weigler. Here's the part about Ater Wynne: "A new firm emerging from the split, Ater Wynne Hewitt Dodson & Skerritt, now has 58 lawyers, including 31 partners. Name partners include Jonathan Ater, Steven E. Wynne and Daniel H. Skerritt, former heads of Lindsay Hart's regulatory, business and litigation practices, respectively. Ater Wynne has taken over about 85 percent of the old firm's office space. The new firm has also taken over Lindsay Hart's offices in Seattle, San Francisco and Washington, D.C." I wouldn't consider that enough to satisfy CORPDEPTH, but I'm not !voting at the moment since I haven't reviewed all the sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Extraordinary Writ! (Saved us all a very disappointing trip to the library.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:53, 12 January 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 03:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Mandogs[edit]

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

I cannot find significant independent coverage about this radio show. Therefore it fails wp:gng. The content of the article and the discussion following an earlier deletion proposal are not encyclopedic in tone and substance Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I too don't see any WP:SIGCOV and can't find anything that can support the article with WP:RS. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find any reliable sources, and it would seem unlikely any exist. Cabrils (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:05, 12 January 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!} 02:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb Luck (film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed because of "notable cast", but notability isn't inherited. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found zero critical reviews in a WP:BEFORE search on Rotten Tomatoes, Wikipedia Library, and Proquest. I don't think this film is notable despite having notable cast members. Jfire (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Rotten Tomatoes pages is bare with no reviews of any kind; we can usually use Rotten Tomatoes to link to reliable reviews, but there are none here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 5 January 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!} 02:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dying to Dance[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed because of "notable cast", but notability isn't inherited. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Canadian made-for-tv movie will not have much coverage; they used to film here because the US dollar made it cheaper, and they don't have to pay health insurance for the workers... I searched on .ca websites and nothing for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Seeing as the film isn't notable as per Wikipedia's standards, I agree, delete this one (but your rude comments about Canada as a country you typed there need not apply). The film might be worth mentioning on Rick Springfield's page, because him starring in it is really the main and only reason I can find for why it's known. PetSematary182 (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not rude, it's the truth. Canada was the land of cheap tv production at the time, and still is, to an extent. And most tv movies are made to be shown once and quickly forgotten about, almost like the pulp magazines of the past. That's my two cents anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found zero critical reviews in a WP:BEFORE search on Rotten Tomatoes, Wikipedia Library, and Proquest. I don't think this film is notable despite having notable cast members. Jfire (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply having some notable actors in the cast is not an automatic notability freebie for a film in and of itself, but like everybody else I can't find any notability-boosting coverage here. I'd recommend not getting sidetracked by arguing with each other about tangential issues, however — Oaktree does have a valid point, in that disposable television films of no enduring significance do get made in Canada on a regular basis (says guy whose developing hometown film industry cranks out at least three or four Hallmark Channel romance films a year now), but that clearly wasn't intended as a blanket swipe against all Canadian film and television production across the board (says guy whose developing hometown film industry also gave us Letterkenny and Shoresy and Slasher and Men with Brooms). Canada makes both notable and non-notable films, just as the United States makes both notable and non-notable films and the United Kingdom makes both notable and non-notable films and on and so forth. Two things can both be true at the same time, eh? Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also grew up on the shores of Lake Ramsey with Science North! Small world. Actually in the Valley to the East of you. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Thoreau book to the west here, but we're all one greater city now, eh? Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 8 January 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!} 02:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Forest Ranger[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. All newspaper articles that I have found are just about screenings. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a search at the Library of Congress newspaper archive using the title, from 1912 to 1914 [9], zero results. A one reel film was a very short film, a few minutes. So it doesn't appear to have gathered any attention when it was released, or since then either. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok it's about 10 minutes a reel for silent film. still not much. Oaktree b (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Romaine Fielding. There's one sentence about it in Woal, Linda Kowall (1995). "Romaine Fielding: The West's Touring Auteur". Film History. 7 (4): 401–425. ISSN 0892-2160., with citations to Prescott Journal-Miner 6 August 1912 p4 and Lubin Bulletin 26 October 1912. Amazingly, the former article is available in Google Newspapers. It's a rather obscure reference; without knowing about the citation from the first paper you'd be hard-pressed to even identify that it was talking about The Forest Ranger. I couldn't find the Lubin Bulletin reference online; it wouldn't be an independent source anyway since it was a publication of the production company. All in all, I think it's pretty clear this short did not achieve significant or lasting attention. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 5 January 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. Arguments to keep are not based in policy; it's quite likely that other fan films require deletion also, but that's not relevant here, see WP:OSE Vanamonde (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the further procedure here? I guess, if there are upcoming arguments for notability they can be stated here? Or is it a deletion for ever? And please remove the other fan film articles too. The Wikipedia rule are not good understandable and not really transparent, but if we have even countless other examples, which strikes these rules it is just confusing, right? But Wikipedia should stay understandable as its own goal as always stated in public. Please improve this vision, at the moment is has not this view in public. Take it just as an review contribution. Thank you. Stw 001 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Troopers: Deadlock[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. All awards appear to be minor DonaldD23 talk to me 02:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to be a non-notable fan film, without any actual coverage or reviews in reliable sources. Its only claim to notability is winning minor awards at largely non-notable film festivals. As this is just a fan film and has no notability, it should definitely not be merged or added to the main article on the Starship Troopers film franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote some reviews are yet pending. Also further Film Festival contributions are pending. And finally to produce this movie, members of the former film crew of the original movie from 1997 contributed here. Therefore I think it is notable, because it is simply part of the Starship Troopers universe. It is not just a fan film, it is a further development of the story, it fills the gap between SST3 and the animated SST films. Moreover, we developed even an own new bug for it - the sniper bug made by the original contributor and art designer of Starship Troopers - Jim Martin. Another contributor was Rock Galotti, the former armorer of SST, the maker of the 'Morita'. On YouTube there is also an interview with Rock. Yo can also take a look onto the movies website starship-troopers.net for more background information.

Please support this project! Stw 001 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, we developed even an own new bug for it

Are you saying here that you were involved in the production of this film? If that's the case, it seems like you have a conflict of interest which you haven't disclosed while creating this article.

Outside of that, whether reviews are pending or not, if proper sources don't exist yet then the article doesn't pass the requirements for notability. It could be that it's just too soon for this article to exist. OliveYouBean (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point here to the 'Inclusionary criteria' of the WP:NFILM. I think some attributes have this quality, it is for sure very unique, not even repeating something existing before, but rather a further development within a given universe. Please think about this argumentation. Stw 001 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to review the movie, please use the following link: [10]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPuPnnzKbHo - it is just private listed due to the pending Film Festival contributions. The premiere of the movie was last year in Munich (Germany) in cinema. Since then we offered the viewing on YouTube for all SST fan for free. The movie was made without any budget, which is also notable I think. Stw 001 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"we offered"? This is clearly a conflict of interest. It does not appear that that was disclosed when you created the article. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not sure if I understand your right? Why it is a conflict to provide a movie to watch for free? So maybe it is the wrong wording, but how to express it? It is just open and non-commercial, so why exactly that should be a problem or conflict? I want to underline, that there is no need to make advertisement for it due to it is non-profit and open for all. I think that is rather good, than bad, isn't it? So then please delete that I said "we offered", we did not offer anything. It is just available and that's it. Stw 001 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're quite understanding what DonaldD23 is saying. On Wikipedia, a conflict of interest means that you're writing about "yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." If you were involved in the creation of this film (which seems to be true from how you keep using "we" in this discussion), then that's a conflict of interest. OliveYouBean (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you very much for this explanation. I understand it clearly now. Of course I don't want to raise such a conflict of interest. However, it is not a profit-driven interest, it is just the willing to help the SST topic in summary. It would not help me in a private way, I could not get any personal advantage from it, it is neither my job nor my profession. To solve this problem I want to ask you guys if somebody of you could take over the further contribution and advocacy for this article? In the name of the "Starship Troopers universe" I think it would be worth to spend some effort here. Of course I state it from point of view of a fan of "Starship Troopers" itself. I cannot expect, that you (all) share the same interest. However, it would be a kind support to all SST fans worldwide in my opinion. Due to the fact that Starship Troopers compared e.g. to StarWars is rather a nice. Therefore this article would simply helpful for people, who is searching for information about this topic in glance. Could you please help to fight for this article? Don't beat me for raising it. I will then sign off. However, if you need a discussion partner - then I am standby for you. Thank you Gentlemen. Stw 001 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is produced in two spoken languages - English and German. The movie has 5 subtitle languages: German, English, Polish, French, Spain. Made according to the Netflix specification for subtitles. The crew was about hundred people spread worldwide. The production time was five years.

I could also ask Casper van Dien for support, if that can be helpful? Stw 001 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stw 001: Notability on Wikipedia is determined by what unrelated sources have to say about them, since there really aren't any talking about this film it probably doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. This doesn't mean that the film isn't unique or notable in a way, just that it doesn't meet the criteria for the type of films with dedicated entries on Wikipedia. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't seem to meet WP:NFILM although it's a cool project. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But please stay patient, a lot of pending activities are yet ongoing. I think in the first half of this year we will hear more about this project. And then we get some notability I am sure. Stw 001 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the Berlin award can be sourced then a mention of this could maybe be mentioned in the article for Starship Troopers 3: Marauder. It wouldn't be enough for its own article, but a one line mention could work. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, it would appear that the "German Short Film Festival" that gave this film an award is not the same Berlin Short Film Festival that we actually have an article on. That one is an annual festival in Berlin, that you can see from the official site, does not mention this film. It appears that this film actually was awarded the Berlin Shorts Award, which describes itself as a monthly, online contest. Rorshacma (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea maybe. please do it. see my comment above - I sign off here, not to raise a conflict of interest. This article is looking for a guy who can take over to fight for it. Maybe even you could take over? I stay ready in case of needed discussions, but I want not force anything. As I said, I am on the way for the topic in glance, but not for any private advantage. It is an 'open project', everybody can contribute and it would help all fans of it. Thank you again, for your good proposal - Good bye. Stw 001 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Because I pointed to "Starwars" compared to "Starship Troopers", please take a look to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fan_films_based_on_Star_Wars. Please review each of these articles. And then tell me why we should no keep the article about the Starship Troopers fan film? For Starwars there are at least 42 fan films! I think alone for this fact the article is "notable", because it is the one and only Starship Troopers fan film worldwide. At least according Wikipedia. Thoughts about that? Stw 001 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. That is not a valid keep argument. It would be helpful if you reviewed the relevant guidelines going forward. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stw 001: If you look at some of the pages in that category and see what kinds of sources they use, it might be a good litmus test for what this page will need. It's very possible that the fan film might become notable in the future as people notice and write about it, which would make this WP:TOOSOON. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that are my thoughts too. I wrote it already here somewhere, there is yet something ongoing. Within next months there will be more results I have heard already. Lets stay patient. Thank you for supporting this idea. Stw 001 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dur Mohammad Kassi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Three references listed in the article are two dead links, the third's a blog. On Google, little to no hits. Only ones are mirrors of Wikipedia articles and social media posts. Otherwise, nothing else. Sarrail (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Sarrail (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A quick fail of WP:BIO. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG standards at all. Leaving aside the references of the article, even a Google search for his work yields no information about it, so it doesn't even meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - producers, especially on TV are very common and rarely notable for their creativity. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 11 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heisei no Sato[edit]

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

I can't find any sources on this company, either in English or Japanese (which I admittedly don't speak). There are a few Japanese pages listing their snacks for sale, such as this one, and a handful of blogs reviewing their products, so they appear to be a real company, but I couldn't find anything resembling significant coverage from a reliable source. The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the company either. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Japan. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to be notable. The company's name is 平成の郷 in Japanese; searches for this on both Google and goo.ne give a few results on supermarket websites (e.g. here and here). Other than that I can find a couple of references to it here (a baumkuchen fan website??) and here (a blog post about some baumkuchen that was purchased from this company), but again, this does not constitute notability. — Jumbo T (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Kazamzam (talk) 16:40, 11 January 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.