Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< December 14 December 16 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup awarded penalties[edit]

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

A list of penalties is not inherently notable and there is no evidence it meets WP:GNG. It is mainly WP:FANCRUFT. Pretty much all the sources are WP:ROUTINE match reports, none discuss this list as a concept implying that it is not notable. Penalties are a fairly routine and common part of football, they might not happen every match but there is nothing special about a penalty in a football game. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. The test here is not how common a thing is, WP:NLIST directs us to consider if the topic is notable as a group. For example: https://www.sportingnews.com/us/soccer/news/most-penalties-one-team-world-cup-argentina-lionel-messi/r3qnxmtxb7wpe5lqdx5eq8dy suggests it is. CT55555(talk) 00:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This does not seem to be a notable list type of article. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are similar Wikipages with lists of all own goals, red cards, hat-tricks, penalty shot-outs in the FIFA World Cup history. What's so uncommon or special about own goal or red card? Is it not a part of football routine? Also, official reports (especially old ones) not often contains information about unrealized penalties (missed or saved). Hyperion82 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Also, would support deleting own goals one, probably red card one too. Penalty shoot outs are way more notable than just a penalty in a match, as they are way rarer. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS, we don't need a list of every single penalty ever taken in the WC, it's not useful, encyclopedic content. This content would be suitable at a FIFA World Cup fandom site, but not here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing special about a penalty being awarded in a game, this is pure statcruft. – PeeJay 10:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I am neither for or against this article, it's perfectly valid content, WP:GNG can be constructed if one wants too. Certain penalties, will stick out over controversial decisions and such. Although WP:NOSTATS and WP:ROUTINE are issues, I really am not concerned as I feel there is validity to this list as a resource that can be used by said footy scholars who need that information. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 13:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. An awarded penalty is a somewhat common occurrence, so no need to include this on an encyclopedia. Frank Anchor 02:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The awarded penalties are undue. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I understand the essence of the article, but I don't think it needs to exist in Wikipedia. Sepguilherme (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is a visually effective and arguably notable list. But I think it has completely the wrong name, which is a major part of the problem. It should have been "List of FIFA World Cup penalties taken" (or equivalent). The current name of the list ("awarded penalties") suggests it's a list of referee decisions, which sounds more routine and uninteresting. This list tells a different story. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe list of "FIFA World Cup in-game penalties taken"? Or "FIFA World Cup awarded penalties taken"? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red card per NOTSTATS. "Visually effective" (i.e. it looks pretty) is not a valid reason for retention. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, it isn't, and wasn't intended as a justification. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Each individual instance of these is such a massive event that putting them together does cross the threshold of "this should be here" for me. Abeg92contribs 22:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to JoJo (singer). People weren't specific about their desired Merge target except this article. If you would like to propose a different Merge target, please propose it on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Music[edit]

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

This page does not meet WP:NCOMPANY and there's multiple issues. The formation section is basically a collection of repeated information (multiple points are mentioned more than once). Much of the "history" information is copied from the artists' page and also pages about the respective albums' pages. Furthermore the discography section is entirely lifted from JoJo discography. Pages about record labels should only exist when there is significant information about the actual operations of the label. This isn't a record label, its an imprint where the artist owns their own masters. There's no significant information about the imprint other than why it was formed. The page is not required and should be redirected to the artist's page. There are no other artists signed to the 'label'. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge...Merge...Merge!!! For some reason, people keep bringing obvious record label merge targets to AfD, as if the better solution would be to have a redlink here. it's not, and it's much less administrative burden to initiate a merge than to drag yet more articles through the protracted deletion process. This label has one artist, whose article is most certainly never leaving this encyclopedia; you know what to do. Chubbles (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: We don't have an article about JoJo's car, or JoJo's toilet. The label being nearly entirely dependent on the founding artist's work means that this should be a paragraph in Levesque's biography, nothing more. - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (selectively) to JoJo (singer). The faux annoyance above is not justified because a discussion here can help solidify consensus in the event of a re-re-redirect war. Anyway, since this label is all JoJo and nobody else, its corporate history can be described in one paragraph or so at her article. No need to merge all the chart info and release histories because that stuff is already at JoJo's discography article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Looks like this could fully fit under the main JoJo article without losing any information for now, but if any other artist gets signed to it it should be spun back off. Abeg92contribs 22:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If you want to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen, Kentucky[edit]

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

I've looked for this "unincorporated community" to see if I can expand it, but I have found more or less nothing that so much as mentions its existence except GNIS and a book that appears to be pulling from GNIS. There is no post office, no evidence of a railroad stop, nothing. There is a street that passes the corner where the coordinates are called "Nineteen school road", and the best I can gather is that GNIS may have screwed up the "nineteen" in "Nineteen school road" for an unincorporated community's name that had a "school road".

In any case, this does not appear to pass WP:GEOLAND. This does not appear to be a legally recognized unincorporated community. Per the guideline, this would mean that we should evaluate this under the WP:GNG, but there does not appear to be significant coverage of this error by multiple independent reliable sources.

As such, this article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASONs #7 and #8. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's conceivable that "Nineteen school road" is so named because it goes toward or past some old "Nineteen school", so named because it was once the one-room schoolhouse of the village of "Nineteen"; but it's also possible that there was once a system of "school roads", whose tolls supported education, and that road happens to be the 19th one; and I'm sure other explanations for the name could be imagined. In the absence of a source giving some context to the name on the topgraphical map, I agree that it is appropriate to delete the article. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above. This place, if it even exists, is notable only at a local level. TH1980 (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete image search gave me a map with a place named Nineteen on it, but that's obviously not enough. Possibly an old place name for a cross-road; not finding any other evidence that the place exists or is inhabited. Elinruby (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold because I've just phoned the Ohio County library to see if they have any information about this place. Probably not worth keeping but want to do some sort of gut-check with offline sources. It appears they'll be in tomorrow but in the likely event I don't hear anything from them I have no issue with this being deleted after 24 hours. Abeg92contribs 22:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Hut 8.5 18:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Said Al Muzayin[edit]

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

Unreferenced article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Geoff | Who, me? 21:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom as the article has had significant sources added which I could not find at the time of nomination. Clearly meets WP:GNG in its current form. Geoff | Who, me? 17:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy speedy speedy speedy speedy speedy speedy speedy keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1C00:C001:581B:88:836F:A042 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy why? Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find anything, but I find it hard to believe there isn't something written about him, as he wrote famous national lyrics. In arab sources perhaps? Oaktree b (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found them and improved the article. CT55555(talk) 01:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He meets WP:GNG clearly. I've significantly improved the article. He wrote a national anthem and is clearly a notable leader, poet, writer and politician. CT55555(talk) 01:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep seems to be a better article now, I think it's GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Article has been improved dramatically since the nomination was made, and the subject has clear WP:GNG value. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Glane23 would you consider withdrawing this one, in context of the changes and WP:SNOW? CT55555(talk) 16:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: Done. See above Geoff | Who, me? 17:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hard to find English sources, but Arabic sources appear to exist. pburka (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shera Bechard[edit]

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

Ideally, I would've WP:BLARd to Michael_Cohen_(lawyer)#Payment_to_Shera_Bechard. But atleast 1 editor doesn't think so. And, is apparently shy of discussion. There's no significant coverage on her, except one single event. So WP:PSEUDO applies. — hako9 (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Requesting any uninvolved editor or any admin to premature close this per WP:NACD with result as redirect, unless ofcourse they have a differing opinion. — hako9 (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is also significant national coverage of her relationship with Hugh Heffner, in the National Post long before the rumoured affair with Donald Trump. There's also some coverage of her porn career. Certainly not notable for a single event - her German and Spanish Wikipedia articles were first written years before that event. Nfitz (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You call this significant coverage? Did you read the article you cited above? It talks about US immigration and visas. Read past the headline. Regarding other coverage, I guess we take your word for it and close the discussion? This is a pseudo-biography. Her past relationships and non-existent porn career is fluff material. — hako9 (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It talks about such immigration and Visas - it also discusses her movie career. If you cut out all the paragraphs strictly about bureaucracy or other people, there's still significant coverage, in my opinion. There's also coverage of her long before she met Heffner - though not in the biggest national papers. I haven't looked much about how foreign career at all - but I'd have thought that if she's one of the many women that Trump had raped, knocked up, or make a huge pay-off too, that would have lead to some significant coverage as well. Nfitz (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There must be sources. Believe you me. — hako9 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here - I'm sure you saw the same local and regional coverage that I did when you did your BEFORE. You did do a BEFORE with Proquest, right? I'm not sure if that stuff is significant - but it doesn't matter, because the National Post one is, and so are some of the recent coverage relating to her being paid off by Trump's staff. I'm missing something about your objections here. Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant coverage except the one event. The National Post article is not significant coverage. All the results on proquest are passing mentions or related to the single event in mid 2018, or from unreliable tabloid sources. So stop wasting everyone's time or produce sources. — hako9 (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she is notable for more than one event.

  1. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ex-playboy-centrefold-says-fundraiser-for-trump-urged-her-to-get-abortion-1.4085158
  2. https://www.timesofisrael.com/playmates-suit-bares-details-about-affair-with-top-gop-donor/
  3. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/who-did-playboy-model-shera-bechard-really-have-an-affair-with/

I read the WP:BLP1E guidance the same was as WP:NOTBLP1E explains it - i.e. we don't need significant coverage for more than one event, we just need some coverage, a small amount of coverage meets the criteria CT55555(talk) 05:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all the three articles you cite above are related to the one single event in mid 2018, relating to her relationship and lawsuit against Elliott Broidy, covered in sufficient detail under Broidy's article and under Cohen's article. Quoting from WP:PSEUDO, In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will mean that an editor creating the article will try to "pad out" the piece by including extraneous biographical material, e.g. their date and place of birth, family background, hobbies and employment, etc. Such information, in many cases, will fail the inclusion test, as it is unlikely to have been widely publicised in the media. When in doubt, concentrate on the notable event, rather than invading privacy for the sake of padding out an unnecessary biography. The "extraneous biographical material" in this article is the tabloidy celeb gossip, which fails the inclusion criteria. — hako9 (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another article source an unconnected event https://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/playboy-model-is-granted-genius-us-visa-26870612.html CT55555(talk) 14:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As stated above, the topic passes WP:BASIC because it has clear significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CT55555 and FormalDude Andre🚐 23:43, 14 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! 21:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep based on coverage in relation to multiple points of the subject's life. BD2412 T 21:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep, she's got sporadic coverage about the hush money payment to the Trump staffer, [1], about this level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It may be possible to improve further. I see no real reason to delete GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per CT55555's comment above, the article's subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC and the article's subject is known for more than a single event, so a redirect to another article covering any single event would not be appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kotuykanskaya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only a couple of sources have ever discussed this supposed impact feature. In Mikheeva 2014, the only reference to the structure is a figure caption, thus this does not count towards significant coverage. Klokočník et al. probably counts as significant coverage, but is published in a low-ranked mega journal known to publish science of questional quality (Sci Rep), and isn't enough to demonstrate notability on its own. Other sources that come up by searching are either by the same authors of the 2020 paper, or are conference abstracts, which are effectively self-published and have no editorial oversight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, this article lacks general notiability and significant coverage in the scientific literature. Paul H. (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The proposed impact structure is based as yet on rather circumstantial geophysical evidence and not on the discovery of any "hard" geological data to support the hypothesis (as admitted by the authors). Too speculative for now, as is reflected in the lack of more general coverage. Mikenorton (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only semi-substantial source I am finding is Klokočník et al. 2020, and the few sources citing it by other authors all merely make reference to the detection method ("this method was also used to investigate a possible crater" etc.) rather than the finding. Needs validation and solid presence in the literature before we can have an article on it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe what is being referred to is what is covered by this national geographic article here and the BBC article here, perhaps a rename is in order, but I believe it is notable. EvilxFish (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I don't even know what to say to this. How the fuck is a 163 ft wide crater created by a recent explosion the same as a 200km wide supposed buried impact structure? Other than being located in Siberia, they have nothing in common. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow WP:CIVIL when discussing things. I was trying to work out what the article was referring to exactly, or what it was trying to, from a few lines of text and bad citations. I found those articles and thought that was the same thing. EvilxFish (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Consensus is clear that this event is notable; as deletion is not clean-up, issues relating to the article content should occur at the talk page. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Artsakh blockade[edit]

2022 Artsakh blockade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The alleged blockade is not being reported by reliable news outlets as it completely relies on Armenian media reports, with the only non Armenian source cited calling it a disinformation. Ecrusized (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - OP's AfD reason is entirely null as third party sources reported about the blockade [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I suggest OP do a little more research before launching an AfD like this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources you have cited are Armenian like I stated in my deletion request. euneighbourseast focuses on headlines specific to Armenia. RFE/RL states that the article is written by its Armenian edition at the top. The statements by EU do not confirm the alleged blockade taking place. It only states the EU is concerned by alleged reports. Again I stand my argument, the article is entirely made up of first party accusations by one country towards another. There are zero 3rd party sources reporting in on this. Ecrusized (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RFE/RL states that the article is written by its Armenian edition at the top. - It's published by RFE still, and I don't see "alleged" in other sources. Also, Eurasianet which is third party, reliable and used in many AA2 articles also wrote about the blockade [7] so again, this article has all merits to stay. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the article should be rid of armenian sources and use third-party ones. The whole article feels like one from the armenian wikipedia and there's a huge imbalance towards the armenian point of view. The topic is notable, but the article isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.58.187 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I repeat, the article consists of Armenian sources only because it is a translation from the Armenian Wikipedia. It is necessary to add foreign sources, since they are, as indicated above. PLATEL (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to meet notability requirements and has coverage by international reliable sources. - Indefensible (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Coverage, notability requirements are met. WP:GNG met.BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and develop the article better. I'm not qualified to comment on the claims of biased sources, but deletion is not the remedy for such a thing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purna Chandra Jamatia[edit]

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

Politician who does not meet WP:NPOL; the article was draftified and then cut&paste recreated by the draft creator. bonadea contributions talk 18:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and he is the state/province–wide office member and that is under State Government of India. Please check carefully the post. 122.161.65.92 (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Chief Executive Member is clearly notable role. TTAADC is an autonomous body, which is in line with the requirements at WP:NPOL. --Soman (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To expand a bit - TTAADC is not just a district, it is a government with autonomy granted under the sixth schedule of the Constitution of India. TTAADC has legislative powers, akin to a subnational parliament. The CEM is the head of government in this entity. --Soman (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important to emphasise that not meeting NPOL is not grounds for deletion; NPOL is a positive test, passing NPOL allows for presumed notability. Not passing NPOL only means no presumed notability, no more or less, so one would need to establish whether or not the GNG applies. As for whather the Autonomous District Councils satisfy our classification as subnational parliaments - I'd probably agree. They clearly have more power than district level bodies and possess law making (as against regulatory) power.[1] Nevertheless, even if one does not accept that argument, the nomination makes no argument that the article's present sourcing fails the GNG.

References

  1. ^ Stuligross, David (1999). "Autonomous Councils in Northeast India: Theory and Practice". Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. 24 (4): 497–525. ISSN 0304-3754. a third level of the Indian federal system: the autonomous district council (ADC) . Although Indian districts normally are merely administrative units without cultural content, ADCs - all of which are much larger than revenue districts and expand in one instance to include 26 million residents - are designed explicitly to provide representation to named ethnic communities. When India's constitution was promulgated in 1950, six regions comprising the bulk of the northeast Indian landmass were designated ADCs. These councils have less power than states but more than local gover- ments; they are intended to incorporate their predominantly tribal populations, as communities, into the Indian state. Analysis of India's innovative three-tiered federal arrangement deepens one's understanding of federal processes more generally
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see two questions that need further clarification from this discussion 1) is an Autonomous District Council an entity that would pass WP:NPOL and 2) is the sourcing about the subject sufficient to pass WP:GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @Soman: and @Goldsztajn:, using the diagram at Administrative divisions of India#Tiers of India, where do Autonomous administrative divisions of India fit? S0091 (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also posted a note at WP:WikiProject India to solicit more input. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 The quote above I provided from Stuligross notes the position of ADCs: below that of a state but above a district, although they technically have powers free from the state-level regulation and in judicial matters sit below the Supreme Court, rather than the state High Courts. The linked table is OR and mixes representational (ie elected) structures with administrative structures (eg the existing divisions are administrative organisational structures, not elected structures). The ADCs are 6th Schedule consitutionally mandated representative structures with law making powers; in many matters they are automous from state regulation and sit directly below national government. More details here: The Sixth Schedule: The History of Tribal Autonomy in the Indian Constitution. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn thanks, this is helpful. I still do not feel confident enough in my own understanding to provide a solid opinion but hopefully others will participate. There are a couple relevant AfC drafts, Draft:Suhel Debbarma and Draft:Jagadish Debbarma, which are impacted. The former I actually rejected, perhaps erroneously, and the latter is pending so I am interested in the outcome of this AfD. S0091 (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Goldsztajn. Autonomous District Councils satisfy Wikipedia's classification as subnational parliaments. They have more powers than a district level council. Gothamk (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lost track of this AfD discussion after nominating the article. Thank you, @Soman: and @Goldsztajn:, for your clarifications and explanations! Having read up on ADCs and their status, I would agree that an elected member of an ADC probably does meet WP:NPOL. (Btw, I see that my nomination appears to say that a politician has to meet WP:NPOL – I should have been clearer about the fact that I didn't think WP:BASIC was met.) Since there are "Delete" !votes I can't withdraw the nomination, but I'll change my own position to keep. --bonadea contributions talk 18:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Striking my above delete vote based on the above explanation, and sharing how it is passing notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Front[edit]

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

I'm not exactly sure how to classify this, but I don't think it is either notable as a subject or salvageable in its writing. BD2412 T 17:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added an interwiki link and this seems to just be a translation of the Ukrainian article. Coverage seems to be focused on the azovstal bracelets and there is no reason that that can't be covered in Akhmetov's article—blindlynx 22:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I hope I will develop this article better. - BorborNeoneo (talk) 14:44, 10 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! 19:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to improve this article by finding English sources soon. - BorborNeoneo (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference in English, summarizing the results of the Steel Front's bracelet fundraising company. There are several Interfax articles in English, perhaps you could use them too. ThegaBolt (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: G11 - promotional UtherSRG (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've looked at the various sources and even using online translation, it is clear that the sources rely on PR/Announcements, etc. I am unable to locate any sources that meet WP:ORGIND criteria for "Independent Content", topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While I find myself in agreement HighKing most of the time, the consensus here among discussion participants is that the recent work done on this article helps demonstrate that the subject meets GNG now. Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hovey Manor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, cites no sources. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable:
  1. https://montrealgazette.com/business/manoir-hovey-north-hatleys-five-star-gem-wont-rest-on-its-laurels
  2. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/clinton-hovey-manor-1.4238860
  3. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-design/article-home-decor-stores-eastern-townships-quebec/
CT55555(talk) 19:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with sources found, is notable enough for GNG. Article badly needs a rewrite.
Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Have done the rewrite. CT55555(talk) 00:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rewrote properly, reliably sourced. Sarrail (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also found https://globalnews.ca/news/8110474/clintons-quebec-vacation-august-2021/ as a potential source for the article which I added. Clearly notable given its reputation and history. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 12:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have an article with RS. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This topic is about a hotel therefore its a company and WP:NCORP guidelines apply, not just GNG as some Keep !voters have pointed to above. Both require "independent" sources and NCORP spells out what is meant by "independent" which not only includes "functional independence" (no corporate links, etc) but also include "intellectual independence" (see "Independent Content" at WP:ORGIND). "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The content must also be regarded as deep or significant and containing in-depth information *on the company*. I'm assuming all the sources are WP:RS. Let's look at the sources:
I am unconvinced that the "awards" are significant enough to establish notability either, there are so many awards available for hotels and travel destinations and so many different factors for each award that for the most part, awards in this industry have little weight. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 14:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article about a corporation though? Or is it about the history of a building etc. Much of this is not about the company that currently operates the business that operates from within the hotel. i.e. this is about the hotel building, guests, history, location, not just about Quebec Corporation XYZ Inc, etc CT55555(talk) 14:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Areen Masrour Barzani[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. The primary notability claim on offer here is that he and his work exist, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of external validation of his significance (noteworthy journalism awards, etc.) -- and the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as YouTube videos, Twitter tweets, press releases from directly affiliated organizations and staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of more substantial third-party coverage in sources independent of his own career than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only social media posts found, appearing at a TedX talk isn't notable, pretty much anyone can nominate someone to get in. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target but I don't see a consensus to do this. Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Vicente, Arizona[edit]

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

Another GNIS-derived spot about which I can find nothing. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apologies for the OR, but from satellite and street-view it looks empty, no evidence anyone lives within easy walking distance of that point, so it doesn't seem to be "populated" under the natural meaning of that term. I do note a nearby feature "San Vicente Wash", so maybe there was a historical settlement of such a name. The nearest habitable complex appears to be Kitt Peak National Observatory. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not have a populated place to satisfy WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of a notable populated place here. –dlthewave ☎ 13:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tohono Oʼodham Nation? otherwise, nope, doesn't seem to be a settlement right there. At all. Anyone who does live on that road would however be affected by the issues discussed at that article; it's the first road that a border crosser would encounter. No strong feelings about memorializing the place name either way though, if others disagree Elinruby (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qendresa Bajra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Kosovo women's international footballers as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 18:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flaka Asllanaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flutura Agaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open Icecat[edit]

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

Spam-flavoured and withou anything that looks like a solid enough source to establish notability. Normally I enjoy copyediting rubbish like this, biut sometimes there's no way that a copyedit would leave anything at all.TheLongTone (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thandekile Mathobela[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taïsha Hansen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Namata[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Alarcón[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly López[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The other pages mentioned in the discussion were not nominated, so only this one is being deleted at this time. RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1886 South British Football Soccer Association season[edit]

1886 South British Football Soccer Association season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG Avilich (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Oda[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a musician, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is that he and his music exist, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his music, but the referencing here is entirely to primary sources such as his own self-published website, liner notes in his own CD booklets, and his albums' presence on online music stores, with not a shred of GNG-assisting coverage in third-party media or books shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Did not see the talk. (non-admin closure) Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medscape[edit]

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

2, 13, and 14 are passing mention, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are non-independent, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 unreliable sources. Ref 1 is valid, but that seems to be it. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lamont[edit]

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

While accomplished, there is not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass GNG, and his positions, h-Index, and anemic quotation count do not show that he passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 14:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, it's a bit too early in their career for notability here; can perhaps revisit in 5-10 yrs. It appears this is a beefed-up LinkedIn posting. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Kelsey (Actor)[edit]

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

There don't seem to be any significant sources about this actor apart from this local article[8], just passing mentions. Fails our notability guideline. Fram (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Fram (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet WP:NACTOR, imdb lists 34 separate roles. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMDB isn't a reliable source, and NACTOR has nothing about "has played many roles", but wants "significant" ones. He doesn't seem to have played a major role in any major production, hasn't received significant (or any?) awards, hasn't been the subject of much attention... Basically, he doesn't meet NACTOR at all. Fram (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would disagree regarding IMDB being a reliable source and a few appear "significant" on there, but I may be wrong. I am curious what the threshold between "significant" and "not significant" is, we may or may not disagree there. I am not an expert on this actor, so I am willing to listen. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Searched Wikipedia Library but found little besides TV listings of this David Kelsey. There is however, another individual named David Kelsey (1932–1996), an actor/director/playwright who looks notable based on the many obituaries that were published when he died (which suggests that there is additional coverage in other databases if we go back far enough). Cielquiparle (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Other than the one local source (Palo Alto Online) I only find his name listed in credits for various films/shows. Some of the references here don't mention him (e.g. #1 The Cape). Lamona (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan war crimes[edit]

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

Although an article might be possible on this topic, this is not it. Many of the sources are unverifiable because the text was copied and pasted from other articles and none of the 10 or so sources I checked mentioned war crimes. Unless someone wants to fix it, and that would be difficult, I think we have to nuke it. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article is in stark contrast to Wikipedia. And, most of info that is clearly from unreliable sources make this page unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article is mostly based on unverifiable sources or unconfirmed news published in daily outlets. There are no well-researched independent articles or books that address the topic directly and significantly. Insight 3 (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research, a self-curated agglomoration of incidents does not constitute state war crimes. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Nomination Withdrawn per WP:HEYMANN update to the article. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 16:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heliocentric astrology[edit]

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

Page was redirected then reverted. References are non-existant. Fails WP:SIGCOV and something else. No significant coverage. scope_creepTalk 12:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, neither the editor who made the redirect nor the nominator took the time to find that there is indeed significant coverage, starting in 1899. There are also modern works and journal articles on both the history of the topic and the topic in general. A selection of half-a-dozen sources have been added for future use bringing the article up to standards. Skyerise (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn Article has been extensively updated with excellent sourcing that confirms to the WP:HEYMANN standard. Feels ok. scope_creepTalk 15:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Voisin[edit]

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

Racing driver. No indication of being notable. No significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 11:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst his career in cars has been very short, there are multiple decent references where he is the subject (I have replaced some of the references with more in-depth, independent sources). He was also a nominee for the Autosport BRDC Award and thus written about by Autosport. He won several times in GB3 this year and finished high in the championship. Although it’s more of a weak keep for me, and it’s bordering on WP:TOOSOON, I think it is worth keeping based on the few decent sources such as the Autosport article and Scout Report: Callum Voisin, plus that he was quite successful in GB3 this year with a lot of potential for next year and longer. It seems like if this article were to be deleted it would end up being created again not long in the future, which hence seems like a bit of a waste to delete this article. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the points above. Autosport, Formula Scout, and The Checkered Flag all have coverage. As well, I strongly disagree with the assertion that there's a lack of significant coverage. Although it is an interview (and the definition of independence for those has been debated), 1 is another long source for coverage of his career. SmackJam (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The driver has won a few races but I don't see him winning any kind racing series. How can he be notable? The notability criteria per WP:NSPORT is WP:NMOTORSPORT. I don't see any reference that satisfy any of the 9 criteria on WP:NMOTORSPORT. The simple reason for that is that it is very very early career, and the subject is non-notable. scope_creepTalk 18:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON for an article. The Autosport source only gives a very brief piece of coverage to this article's subject, nowhere near enough to be considered WP:SIGCOV. The other sources either appear to be non-independent from a notability guideline perspective or are coverage of events that this person happens to have participated in with only WP:ROUTINE coverage of Voisin. Many of these sources are also of questionable reliability, perhaps not enough to exclude their usage anywhere on Wikipedia, but certainly enough that we should be wary of their use in a WP:BLP of such a young subject. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Points mentioned above show that this is a bit early, but coverage is there and there is likely to be more in the future. A bit soon but should be kept. AmazingLemur41 (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editor is a WP:SPA, possibly the driver himself. scope_creepTalk 20:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dude I’m not? I’ve literally made multiple edits before, I don’t use Wikipedia that often because there are never that many edits which need doing, but I don’t see how you could think that. Am I supposed to have a certain number of edits to reply on these? Not that I can see, I really don’t understand what makes you say that. AmazingLemur41 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, you have seven edits to Wikipedia. Certainly anybody can come in to edit Wikipedia, but when you come to Afd and say the person is notable, when he has only won three races. That makes me think that your trying to buffalo and subvert the Afd, when there is absolutely zero evidence the guy is notable. scope_creepTalk 21:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Putting all that aside, race wins are not necessary in-and-of themselves to establish notability. A driver could hypothetically be notable for having some sort of spectacular lack of victories, WP:NMOTORSPORT is just a guideline which indicates which what drivers are highly likely to be notable (to such an extent that nominating such articles for deletion would be likely to be considered a waste of everybody's time), and competing in GB3 comes nowhere near the bar set there so we just need to consider the WP:GNG. The issue here is whether Voisin has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Personally I think that bar is not met (bearing in mind that many of the sources may provide significant coverage of the events Voisin has competed in, but the coverage of Voisin appears to still be WP:ROUTINE). I should be clear that I generally set a high bar for WP:SIGCOV when it comes to WP:BLPs of WP:MINORs, as defamatory vandalism is a potentially serious concern and may not be picked up on promptly by good-faith editors before it causes some sort of harm. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NMOTORSPORT is the latest notability policy, not a guideline. It was updated recently after the recent RFC, this year and it applies here per consensus. scope_creepTalk 08:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT says very clearly that "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline." Writing as someone who fully supported the updated NMOTORSPORTS guidelines, WP:GNG still takes precedence. If GNG is met then it doesn't matter if they're a track day hobbyist who runs a few club races every now and then or a multiple-time professional-level champion. Tagging SPAs is one thing, but instantly accusing them of such an egregious COI with no evidence to back it up is not a good way to sway people. I wouldn't even call that editor an SPA. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 12:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:GNG is met with SIGCOV in Autosport and Formula Scout. Nominator gets a TROUT for their gross accusations of COI towards AmazingLemur41. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 13:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination Withdraw 09:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niroop Nandakumar[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not an actor and not a director. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 11:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi Kaneyoshi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are PR and clickbait sites. scope_creepTalk 11:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but this article needs serious work to make the notability clear. This is a very poor article. The Banner talk 19:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more very poor "articles": Lazy Bear, Morihiro (restaurant), Q Sushi, Phenakite (restaurant), Shibumi (restaurant), Kali (restaurant), Gwen (restaurant), Osteria Mozza, Nozawa Bar, Camphor (restaurant), Commis (restaurant), Taco María, Sushi Tadokoro, Jeune et Jolie (restaurant), Soichi (restaurant). I draftified them when they only had the single Bon Appétit source and the creator promptly moved them back. Adding a source or two still doesn't mean we should have copy-paste one-sentence crap in main space though. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to add notability tags or nominate for deletion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So then you can complain you have to "drop everything" to make them into actual articles within a week? I don't care if sources exist, don't make junk one-liners. Reywas92Talk 16:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Acknowledging your request for me to stop creating stubs, I'd argue adding tags prompts action and is more constructive than attempting to mass delete entries about notable topics. We don't have to agree. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep to Neutral ( Updated per below comment by nominator.) This is an one star Michelin restaurant. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, If the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide, the inclusion counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject, therefore I disagree that this reference is PR or clickbait. Unfortunately lots of sources are listicles but Time Out has a lengthy review that appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The New York Times also appears to cover this in three paragraphs, so it's probably debatable regarding whether CORPDEPTH is met. With those two references that count towards CORPDEPTH IMO and one being debatable, I currently am at neutral to weak keep. VickKiang (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As it has a single Michelin star, it should have decent coverage and be notable. I'll take a look at these refs, later today/tonight. If they are decent, I will withdraw the nomination. scope_creepTalk 10:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my opinion it is more a task for the original poster to improve the article and show the notability. In the present state, it is not really worth keeping. The Banner talk 10:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ɱ (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 06:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Pac-Man[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Refs are profile and fan sites. No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some of the above sources to the article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I think concerns mentioned in the deletion nomination have been addressed. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Big Heart[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement. Currently it has zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. And searches turned up a few mentions, but can't find anything in-depth. Was sent to draft for improvement, but returned to mainspace without review. Onel5969 TT me 17:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 17:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Oklahoma. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moving articles to draftspace is never a solution to perceived lack of notability, the likelyhood that an article like this is improved in draftspace is incredibly small.★Trekker (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's not correct. Just because I can't find online sources does not mean that sources do not exist. There have probably been well over a hundred articles I've draftified which have subsequently been improved enough to pass GNG. Onel5969 TT me 17:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There have probably also been hundreds draftified that ended up never getting touched again (regardless of sources existing) because half of editors (let alone regular people) know about draftspace even being a thing. Regardless, there is nothing that can be done in draftspace that can't be done better with the article still in mainspace.★Trekker (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That is partially correct, there are sources online as well, but many such pieces of information are anecdotes. I got in touch with Chief Big Heart's daughter through wrestling forums, but then I realised those aren't to be taken at face value without any documented proof. Alex Emeritus (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reasonably well known wrestler in the 50s-60s. McPhail (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Professional wrestling articles are an awkward fit for an encyclopedia because of the industry deliberately blurs fiction and reality. But in this case there is just enough in the way of reliable sources validating Chief Big Heart's significance within the world of wrestling (e.g. the books published by Scarecrow Press (imprint of Rowman & Littlefield) and ABC-CLIO, even if they are mentions that don't count as SIGCOV), in addition to the many newspaper articles. If there are specific claims, sources, or issues that are problematic, I would recommend focusing on flagging and/or fixing those, rather than deleting the entire article. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:08, 7 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! 17:39, 7 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! 07:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article has been expanded and improved somewhat significantly since this AfD nomination. This project has always neglected historical wrestling articles, largely due to a lack of interest amongst editors, but also because coverage from that era is hard to come by. I am satisfied that WP:SIGCOV has been met by the current version of the article.LM2000 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Proctor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. A quick Google search found sources, but most of them are personal reviews about his creation of the company. There ain't nothin' much after that, just a Apple podcast after all of those reviews. Sarrail (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Perskaya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Nothin' on Google (no reliable sources), and nothin' on Ukrainian Wikipedia, either. Sarrail (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:CSK#1, absence of a deletion rationale as nominator has withdrawn their rationale Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Donaldson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. How was this written in the good ol' days? Was it better or unsourced? Sarrail (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" Lots of citations found via quick Google search. Article may be expanded. Sarrail (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CJ-1[edit]

CJ-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources. Cursory Google search finds no supporting reliable sources. Non-EN language articles are copies of this one and have no sources in turn. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteComment The Wikidata item says it’s manufactured by Norinco but that doesn’t help with a search. The device is listed as a torpedo here but with no detail at all and I’m not sure how reliable the source is. It’s also listed here - again no detail and I don’t know how reliable the source is. If that’s all that turns up after seven years on Wikipedia unsourced, this looks like a piece of OR, so probably delete or redirect to a list as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 08:31, 8 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! 05:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jagraj Singh[edit]

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The current sources are either passing mentions, or interviews and some of them are not even reliable. He received the Point of Light Award but since that is not the highest civilian award in the United Kingdom it can not be counted toward notability. A Google News search for "Jagraj Singh" returned 99 results but only a few (5-6) are about the subject in question and they are either passing mentions or are not reliable. Also, please note that a draft on the same subject was declined in October 2022. So, since there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. 113.193.45.185 (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG:
  1. The BBC did a documentary about him: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dv1b
  2. That documentary was featured in The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whats-on-tv-tuesday-gmswqfdc0
  3. His work also made the news: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/education-sikhism-takes-focus-they-called-me-osama-documentary-n582821
CT55555(talk) 05:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: How does the documentary establish the notability of the subject? The documentary was not on him or his life but other issues where he was the one to narrate I guess. 113.193.45.185 (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very clear to me that the BBC documentary was indeed about him. CT55555(talk) 05:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't, if you read the article carefully the documentary was not on his life but about issues in the United Kingdom, also your 3rd link reads "The film was made by Maneetpaul Singh Chawla with funding from the University of Connecticut's IDEA grant program." it wasn't made by the subject of this nomination (so can't call his work) and his name is mentioned on twice in the article. 113.193.45.185 (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1 above is a BBC documentary about his work. 3 above is a different documentary made by Maneetpaul Singh Chawla that discusses Jagraj Singh's work. Your comments are not refuting anything that I am saying. Please stop. CT55555(talk) 05:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? can you provide a single source for your each claim that says the documentary was on his life or work? In the NBC source reads "The film features British YouTuber Jagraj Singh conducting street interviews to see what people know about the Sikh religion". Please provide sources to support your claims just saying "seems very clear to me" doesn't make any sense sorry. 113.193.45.185 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dv1b CT55555(talk) 05:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and is there any source for the other documentary? 113.193.45.185 (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unwilling to continue explaining my keep rationale to you. I am confident that I have provided enough justification for the closing admin to assess the strength of my argument. CT55555(talk) 05:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Sikhism, United Kingdom, and England. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi All, I agree with @CT55555 . I have included all information in the talk page please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jagraj Singh. As for sources, they are more than reliable. Further to add, there are official government sources used as well. This shouldn't even be up for discussion in the first place. Renamed user ds09j342589juvm823r098jae4f (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Descriptions of the award he won and enough other coverage for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the references in the article show significant coverage in reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed. Of particular note is a BBC documentary devoted to him and his legacy Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources in the article show notability enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The draft that was declined (Draft:Jagraj Singh) is a very different article sourcing-wise and was declined for the lack of sourcing in that draft. This article does not have that issue. The draft is not and should not be a factor in the deletion of this article, which is worlds better in terms of sourcing. - Aoidh (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the signficant coverage in reliable sources, therefore it passes WP:GNG. Sarrail (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is WP:SNOW keep territory, I recommend the nominator withdraw. CT55555(talk) 23:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeBase Manager Pro[edit]

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

This article has been both a spam magnet and a deletion magnet. What it has never been is a source magnet. While it does not appear to still be in production, it did in the internet era and should have better sourcing. This appears to be the best one and it's not clear whether it was independent and definitely isn't in depth. Star Mississippi 03:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The passing mention in a brief 2009 TMCnet article about Knowledge Management may have been sufficient to make the 2010 PROD inappropriate but is insufficient to demonstrate attained notability and searches are not finding better. No article about the vendor web-site-scripts so no WP:ATD redirect target. AllyD (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NSOFT; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Kansai Collegiate American Football League season[edit]

2016 Kansai Collegiate American Football League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:GNG, no references, empty sections, hasn't been edited in 4 years. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Japan. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is clearly an incomplete and abandoned article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7, no indication of importance (and technically no content prose-wise and no sources), although it does have section headers with empty sections and a couple of infoboxes with some dates, team names, and scores in them. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Hokkaido American Football Association season[edit]

2016 Hokkaido American Football Association season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:GNG, no references. Hasn't been edited in 2 years. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Japan. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no substance to speak of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also searched for coverage on Google.com / Google.co.jp for "北海道アメリカンフットボール協会" 2016 and didn't find secondary sources, only the association website, directory listings, and mentions on association member websites. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kansai Collegiate American Football League season[edit]

2015 Kansai Collegiate American Football League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable content shared in this page. Not notable per WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zoya Tsopei[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. No reliable sources added since this was last declined at AfC, and later re-Draftified. A thorough search for sources uncovers no reliable secondary sources - only paid promotions, unreliable blogs, and press releases. Politanvm talk 02:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further observation: Legaltimes, who created the article, also uploaded the infobox image, which was taken at a photo shoot, and they indicated that they took the image. This is strong circumstantial evidence that they have a conflict of interest with Tsopei. The fact that two of the references now cited in the article are dated 15 December—after the AfD started—also adds evidence. —C.Fred (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: Commons CU here: Legaltimes is a confirmed sock of Marlia555786, whose other sock (Zoikolla) had previously created this article. Эlcobbola talk 14:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV has only one reference [[9]] Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Based on my comments above about the new sources dated today—which are both bylined to "Tedfuel"—it feels like the new sources are part of a calculated campaign to get an article up for the artist. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. —C.Fred (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The socks seem to confirm that, they usually pop up when someone isn't quite notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and Latvia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the new sources added all look suspect to me. Hardakesang looks egregious to me as it openly admits to being a digital marketing site. The entire article looks like paid-for spam. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per deletion nomination. I note that an editor (likely related) tried to remove the deletion tag off of the article page a few minutes ago as well. Likely is paid-for spam or something to that effect. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 02:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, I am not linked to the person or article just found it on scrolling. but i think this article have enough links and sources to have wikipedia page. Moreover, we need to find more sources from google and add in this article instead of deletion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tichkun786 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock !vote striken. Эlcobbola talk 17:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Enrique Carreras. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Slacking Off in Life[edit]

No Slacking Off in Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM.

PROD removed with "deprod; add a Variety review. Probably stands a decent chance at AfD given that and the apparent reviews cited in the es-wiki article.", but no Variety review added and are the other reviews in-depth or just passing mentions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Argentina. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources found. The Spanish article quotes from a book, other sources are imdb and what appears to be a local version of imdb (Spanish film listing website). Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now added the Variety review – apologies for the mistake. I don't have a firm view at the moment on whether the article should be kept: the quotes in the es-wiki article look like they could be from more in-depth reviews, but I don't have access to the (likely foreign-language/offline) sourcing that would be needed to verify that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Redirect to Enrique Carreras where this is mentioned as No hay que aflojarle a la vida. The Variety review probably is WP:SIGCOV and is definitely WP:RS, but it's uncertain if the book and reviews from the Spanish Wikipedia meet WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately, my WP:BEFORE found trivial mentions, 1, 2, 3, 4, this is better at four mentions but still might not be WP:SIGCOV. I searched at Newspapers.com and also didn't find much, though @Extraordinary Writ: do ping me if you find more refs. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Enrique Carreras. The film doesn't meet WP:NFOE; even if made by Enrique Carreras, its plot is just an iteration of several of his movies, particularly those starring Palito Ortega.--Darius (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know on my talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Willis[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic actress. Interview in equally non-notable venues do not establish notability, nor does an AVN award or nomination, as WP:PORNBIO no longer exists. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete plenty of coverage from Xbiz, which is semi-RS, but nothing found elsewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She's covered in the Daily Star with the typical fluffy headlines they publish, nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable actress who doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. All cited sources are not independent or reliable, including 2 interviews, IMDB, Internet Adult Film Database and a mention from AVN. I orginally PRODed this, however it was contested by Inwind (courtesy ping). Thanks to the nominator who brought this to AfD. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:I added two refs which should be sufficient to establish notability. Inwind (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of those references is the WP:DAILYSTAR, a deprecated (junk) source that got the edit flagged by the system. Italian GQ might be useful, as it is the only plausibly good reference on the entire page. Notability not yet established. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • added more reliable source - notability established. Inwind (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The Canal+ source just added lacks independence. It's a promotional write up of the channel's own content. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning move to draft to provide the usual six month window for the article to improve enough to meet WP:AFC approval, or die of abandonment. Not currently in the article, the subject receives a passing mention for appearing in a more-or-less vanilla modelling catalog, and is apparently involved in some industry drama that would be notable if coverage leaked into more conventional news. BD2412 T 21:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does "The accompanying lookbook features adult actresses including Emily Willis, Scarlit Scandal, Rara Knupps, Ski Bri and Lil Larimar." count for anything, notability-wise? I'm not sure even "passing mention" captures the essence of the brevity there. Zaathras (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for most pornographic actors the discussion comes down whether XBIZ and AVN are reliable sources ? And does the deletion of WP:PORNBIO mean that pornographic awards are no longer valid awards? Is there a discussion on it which I have missed. Inwind (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PORNBIO was formally deprecated at this RfC in 2019. Even before that, porn awards stopped being counted for notability absent RS support. As for for AVN and XBIZ, it is important to identify who is speaking, distinguishing news reporting from promotional fluff. The XBIZ reference just added is 1) XBIZ tooting his own horn and 2) an interview. It is not independent secondary source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with my comments above. One plausibly good source is not enough to pass WP:BASIC nor WP:ENT. An independent search for sources yielded only more press releases and tabloid fluff. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The refs include promotional non-SIGCOV press releases (i.e., And yes, from very chaste Mormon morality to porn, there is a huge gap that the beautiful Emily has decided to jump), interview, and annoucements on minor awards. My search didn't find WP:SIGCOV-meeting sources so this clearly fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR. VickKiang (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Saback[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. No reliable sources/references when Googled. Nothin' on Portugese Wikipedia, either. Sarrail (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_15

Leave a Reply