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 10:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad-Ali Jadidoleslam[edit]

Mohammad-Ali Jadidoleslam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. BangJan1999 18:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Iran. BangJan1999 18:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I had CSD'ed the article under A7, but it was soon recreated. Having a collection of more than thousand cameras, or photos from particular era is not a claim for notability. The individual is also not a notable photographer according to the criteria for creative professional. We still could have an article about the individual if they had significant coverage in reliable source. But as there is no significant coverage either, the person fails general notability criteria as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The individual is a notable photographer according to the criteria for creative professional because he has created a well-known body of work. His has taken portrait photos of 1500 Iranian artists among them Mohammad-Hossein Shahriar, Reza Kianian, Tony Zarrindast, and many more. The article in Farsi has been live since 2016 which indicates his notability hasn't been challenged there. But the article in its current form is a stub an needs to be expanded.Bellswillring (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because taking a lot of photos or having a lot of cameras is not a claim for notability. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your argument but I suppose as far as photography is concerned, notability should be interpreted within the limits of the profession. Having recorded historical photos of figures like Shahriar and preserving instances of the 1979 Iranian revolution in Tabriz is quite significant for a photographer. However, the article needs time to be improved. Bellswillring (talk) 11:31, 11 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!} 20:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I tried to include in the article how Jadidoleslam "has created a well-known body of work" in order to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Again I think notability should be interpreted within the limits of the profession. Having recorded photos of historical figures like Shahriar and preserving instances of the 1979 Iranian revolution in Tabriz is quite significant for a photographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellswillring (talk • contribs) 11:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: I've striked this duplicate vote. User:Bellswillring already voted at 04:20, 10 December 2022, a double vote is unnecessary. VickKiang (talk) 02:20, 25 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!} 22:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources found beyond one website, no critical review of his work and it's not discussed in other forms of media. He maybe prolific, but I don't see GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Wuhan[edit]

Ghost of Wuhan (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, no significant coverage. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only sources I could find are already in the article and they are merely just list the plot and the cast. No significant coverage can be found, at least in English sources. Mike Allen 03:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough coverage to meet WP:NFILM. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 13:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:26, 30 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nizami Akbarov[edit]

Nizami Akbarov (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)

Lack of sources to establish notability, may have been written for promotion. -- Beland (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in GS : no pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: GScholar is usually hit or miss when it comes to non-western academics. He has a ton of publications, so it'd be surprising if he didn't meet WP:NPROF#C1, but I am unable to find a definitive number of citations. Curbon7 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GS is often accurate for Russian scientists in a mainstream field such as this. A "Ton of publications" does not help with WP:Prof, only citations count, and there are not many to be found. Even if the BLP is kept, the exorbitant list of publications will have to be removed as unsuitable. I think that this BLP is an abuse of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I'm just noting that having a considerable number of publications means he has to have at least some cites; that's not equating that with NPROF (hence why I didn't blindly !vote keep, there obviously needs to be proof), it's establishing typical causation/correlation. Curbon7 (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim that causation/correlation exists here it is up to you to produce the evidence to prove it. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I am not yet !voting one way or the other, just figuring out the hypothetical plausibility. Please don't be so argumentative. Curbon7 (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Regardless of the outcome, this is some serious NOTCV that needs heavy reduction. Publishing tons of papers isn't unusual in this field so the number of publications isn't indicative of impact. I found very little on Scopus -- only about 25 citations total across several profiles (with various spellings, including "Akberov", "Akperov", "Akrepov"). JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an obvious promotion or self-promotion - based on the content, the tone, the "sourcing" and the accounts who created this page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: After reviewing for several days, I've come to the conclusion that he doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Surprising lack of citations and no other WP:NPROF criteria. Chemistry is generally a high-citation field, so the limited set on Scopus does not bode confidence. Curbon7 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:25, 30 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 La Guancha into existing disamg page and Split out the older history of the Sponge article to Guancha (sponge) for historical record before redirecting to Clathrina per older AfD. Complex article history but reasonable consensus after multiple relists James of UR (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guancha (disambiguation)[edit]

Guancha (disambiguation) (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)

After the news site Guancha was made the primary topic in Talk:Guancha § Requested move 3 November 2022, this has become a WP:ONEOTHER DAB, or maybe one-and-a-half-other since there's the see also to La Guancha (disambiguation). This page has an unusually long history for a brief DAB—an AfD, an RfD, and the RM—but I think it may have now outlived its necessity. Disambiguation can be handled with a hatnote at Guancha: {{about|the news site|the genus of sea sponge|Clathrina{{!}}''Clathrina''||La Guancha (disambiguation){{!}}La Guancha}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The two additional articles that the dab provides navigation for can be handled with a hatnote, so yeah, the dab isn't strictly necessary. However, that page was until very recently at the title Guancha, where it existed for 13 years as an article about a sponge genus. In order to preserve that history, it should be moved to Guancha (sponge) and turned into a redirect to Clathrina (the genus that Guancha appears to have been merged into). – Uanfala (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to that. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:16, 5 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!} 21:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge La Guancha into this page, then WP:HISTSPLIT the page history of the obsolete sponge taxon prior to creating the dab page. La is the Spanish singular feminine definite article, so it can be covered by Guancha (disambiguation). I don't think any of the latter's contents are WP:PTM, and the merged would bring the pagecount up to 5. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try one last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging La Guancha makes sense. And so does a histsplit of the sponge genus history (from 2019 and earlier) into Guancha (sponge). – Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd close this discussion but I'm not familiar with WP:HISTSPLIT. There seems to be a consensus and it's already been relisted 3 times so I guess it will stay open until a closer comes along who has the experience to take the necessary action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 30 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) 21:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Nidup[edit]

Karma Nidup (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:57, 26 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) 21:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Piedra (producer)[edit]

Antonio Piedra (producer) (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)

Lack of sources demonstrating notability, largely promotional. -- Beland (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Venezuela and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 23 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!} 23:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filemobile[edit]

Filemobile (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 was authored in 2010 with disclosure given that interested parties had created the article. The article is primarily supported with outdated company "press releases." The company is an entrepreneurial endeavor that has gone through several reorganisations and renamings. The current name seems to be newspark.io. There is nothing to suggest to me that the company was notable and thus this non-encyclopedia article (marketing) has never been updated. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete I don't find any sources, other than archived listings that use this "service". Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Adding searches for later names below. AllyD (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete: Originally posted as a COI article setting out the company's origins and business proposition at 2010. The company's inclusion in various lists around that time would now fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Articles on the acquiring company Newzulu were twice speedy-deleted as promotional [1] so that doesn't provide an WP:ATD target. Whether under its earlier or current ownership or business propositions, I am not seeing evidence that the firm has attained notabilty. AllyD (talk) 09:38, 24 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) 19:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Spanish International Badminton Tournament[edit]

2003 Spanish International Badminton Tournament (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 in Badminton we don't make articles for separate years until a tournament is notable enough. This wasn't even a Grand Prix level tournament, but a series event. zoglophie 18:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Spain. zoglophie 18:43, 23 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) Enos733 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Movaghar[edit]

Majid Movaghar (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)

Cross-wiki vanity spam created by the locally blocked and globally locked DJ Parisa, who claims to be a relative of the subject and spamming our projects. The subject was deleted from azb, simple and commons. Please consider the question of the subject's notability based on these facts. Bencemac (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless he's on Twitter and Instagram, I can't find anything for this person. Delete for lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oaktree b, you've been here long enough to know that there likely aren't going to be English-language sources for someone who died 50 years ago in a non-Anglosphere country, and that we accept non-English sources. Curbon7 (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I can't find any Iranian sources, please post them if you have. I did a quick Google translate but gave up, most don't look very reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Appears to be verified as a member of the National Consultative Assembly, so does pass WP:NPOL. While there may have been concerns about spam in the other versions, a two-sentence stub isn't spamful. Curbon7 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes NPOL: "four times member of Iranian parliament" (p.229). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Goldsztajn. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 10:00, 30 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Holub[edit]

Allen Holub (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 is more about a cheap advertisement for Allen Holub rather than about actual achievements. E.g. in the article there is a list of former employers. There is nothing notable about him. CasperGoodwood (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have been unable to find any sources that contribute to notability of this subject. Yes, he has a few Google Scholar citations, but nothing like the number that could show a pass of WP:PROF#C1 in the highly-cited field of computer science. I've tried to ignore that fact that the article claimed that he was a distinguished professor when in fact the source said "assistant adjunct professor". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, does not meet WP:BIO Jinian (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely does not pass WP:PROF (only one publication with triple-digit citations in a high-citation field) but WP:AUTHOR is possible if enough reviews of his many books can be found. I didn't find any reviews on Google Scholar or JSTOR but that's not entirely a surprise as they are not academic books. Maybe there are reviews in trade magazines? I'd be willing to change my opinion on this case if they turn up. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources found, agree that this does appear promotional. There are no reviews of his works, or much of anything discussing the person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:23, 30 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antigona Miftari[edit]

Antigona Miftari (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kosovo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - best thing I can find is a squad list mention in Record which is clearly not acceptable for GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 28 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Hills (musical rap artist)[edit]

Morris Hills (musical rap artist) (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)

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Creating editor semi-took advice, but failed to show notability 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well he's covered on facebook and boomplay, neither of which is enough for GNG. There are also discussions taking place at the top of his article, all kinds of stuff with this article that doesn't make sense. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete promotion of a non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO/WP:MUSICBIO - 0 monthly listeners on Spotify and 6 followers on soundcloud indicates where there career is currently at. KylieTastic (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or speedy delete, not fussed either way. Fails every flavour of notability by a country mile. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Good luck to him as he gets started, but a self-promotional effort in social media should not include Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable promotional article only coverage seems to be social media and that doesn’t prove notability Qwv (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:SNOW close as there's no evidence of notability and the article only exists to promote the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article is now moved to Morris Hills (rapper) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Creator indeffed as a sock. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the additional information. Could be time for SNOW, but may as well run its course. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 30 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 Frédérick Raynal. I was going to make this a "soft delete", but a redirect is better. Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PopCorn (video game)[edit]

PopCorn (video game) (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)

Lack of notability, no sources on article, and I was unable to find any potential sources on Google or Archive.org. Ineligible for PROD as was prodded in 2008. Waxworker (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mobygames.com lists 2 reviews (2013 article on Oldies Rising about re-release; 2000 article on GameHippo.com about the original DOS version), but I'm not able to judge reliability of those. As this is a French game, some coverage may be in French computing magazines of the late 1980s (there are only scans on the net, so search is not easy) - I will look into these later. Pavlor (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a possible redirect target: Frédérick Raynal, the game is already mentioned there. Pavlor (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I browsed a database of French computer/video game magazines of the 80/90s, but found only cheats so far - no reviews. Pavlor (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing on Newspapers.com Timur9008 (talk) 20:58, 27 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🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 13:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.D. Villabiagio[edit]

A.S.D. Villabiagio (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 disestablished amateur football club, no longer active since 2018. [2]. A Google search only returns trivial statistical references, and no notable WP:RS coverage. [3] Angelo (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Angelo (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Serie D, possisble search term. GiantSnowman 13:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Club won the Coppa Italia Dilettanti in 2017, which was covered in multiple Italian-language sources [4][5][6]. Moreover, non-routine coverage of its demise can be found here [7]. Certainly, the article needs to be fleshed out, but I believe that the sources I have given demonstrate notability. YoungIreland (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having won an amateur cup exclusively meant to Eccellenza and Promozione teams, which happens to be a tournament with very little national coverage (the one articles you referenced are from local Web media), is not enough to give notability to the subject. The last article you mentioned is merely an interview to the club owner just before of the club demise, which does not qualify as WP:RS. In fact, there is no real secondary worthwhile coverage about the club, apart from the usual football article reports you can easily find for any amateur team in Italy. The fact the team has not even been re-established for five seasons, which is very common practice in Italian football, is also quite telling. Angelo (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per YoungIreland. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG with above references.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per YoungIreland.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:35, 24 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Glen Waverley Suicide[edit]

2022 Glen Waverley Suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, minor sad incident without lasting notability. Fram (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Australia. Fram (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unable to find any evidence pointing otherwise. —Alalch E. 14:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual that chose to end their life, sad but ROUTINE. Nothing for wikipedia to have noted. Coverage is routine, far from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sad daily occurrence which does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree that this is breaking news that was written up too soon. Elinruby (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. 3point1415 (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and does not have sustained coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:28, 30 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Ramirez (fighter)[edit]

Hector Ramirez (fighter) (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:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 64th in the world light heavyweight rankings. Subject has also never made the top 10 of a Sherdog ranking. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and California. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and my search didn't find significant coverage that would meet WP:NMMA. Fight announcements, results, and databases are not enough to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:19, 28 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 and salt. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Juengling[edit]

Konrad Juengling (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)

Article on a NN activist, heavy on self-promotion and in fact a COI, created by an editor who admits to it being autobiographical. This has been recently discussed on the COIN noticeboard [8] and on ANI [9] with numerous editors raising issues, but no resolution. For the article itself -- to repeat myself from the ANI -- this is nothing more than an activist doing activist things, a BLP1E at best, with somewhat threadbare sources that fail to provide the "significant coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires.

Beyond that, a prior version was created by a sock of User:Kbabej at a time when he was indeffed, and deleted as a G5 violation. Beyond that, one of his indeffed socks created an article on his uncle, which has been prodded. Now while User:Kbabej has been a productive editor, he is not thereby immunized against COI. It was a bad look for him to have created an article on himself in 2015, it remained a bad look for him to have created an article on himself in 2017. He has already agreed to a voluntary tban regarding his family, but the messes need to be cleaned up. At this point, the article should be deleted and salted. Ravenswing 11:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging editors from the prior discussions @David Fuchs, Yamla, Hemiauchenia, Poundland Oximeter, AndyTheGrump, Springee, EnPassant, Jayron32, Deb, Horse Eye's Back, and Drmies:. Ravenswing 12:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete: selfpromotional puff piece that fails not only WP:BIO but also WP:GNG. Please note that there was never a discussion here at AfD after the first AfD-nomination since it was speedily deleted per CSD G5 (created by blocked or banned user) before any discussion had taken place. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 11:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly self promotional puff. I completely agree with Tom regarding BIO and GNG beyond the obvious COI issues. Springee (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I can't find any reviews of his book, so AUTHOR is a bust. There's this [10] rather brief profile, and this about how he met his spouse [11]. Coverage in Grenada over environmental causes he's championed [12] and this is sort-of coverage, but it talks about him: [13]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But it needs a re-write, this is very promo. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self promotional puff. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Still doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or any of the secondary notability standards. Subject looks likely to be notable at some point, but not yet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Textbook example of inflation. Delete. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self promotion. Such coverage as their is in secondary sources fails to demonstrate that the subject is anything more than an activist with an eye to publicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. He sprinkled his name into several list articles, from the Eagle Scouts to "LGBT Mormons." Ravenswing 10:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:35, 30 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Marín[edit]

Enrique Marín (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:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 219th in the world lightweight rankings. Subject has also never made the top 10 of a Sherdog ranking. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Spain. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA and I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:36, 30 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Attard[edit]

Gillian Attard (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)

For a BLP, it's three references are all about another person entirely _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 09:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Music, Television, and Malta. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 09:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - She is briefly mentioned in a few sources about her student Gaia Cauchi, but her own singing and acting careers have no in-depth coverage that I can find. Meanwhile, many trivia/directory sites say she won the Midalja għall-Qadi tar-Repubblika (MQR), which is reasonably prestigious in that country but her own ceremony seems to have gone unnoticed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 24 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!} 06:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Asha[edit]

Rebecca Asha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. No evidence she has had any significant acting roles. I also searched under her alternate name "Bec Asha". LibStar (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, with no reliable sources found on a search online. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, does not meet WP:BIO. Only imdb hits, with non-notable filmography Jinian (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I could only find 3 articles on her via Newsbank database (wider and deeper than Google) and 2 are in the small regional newspaper The Manningham Leader, and one article about her clothes size in Melbourne's Herald Sun Sunday Magazine. She has the foundations for passing WP:ACTOR but isn't here yet, and by now, should be if she was going to. Cabrils (talk) 22:51, 23 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!} 06:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gittemeier House[edit]

Gittemeier House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NBUILD. Not on any national historic register. Sources are not independent, except one local newspaper article. Not enough in-depth independent coverage for WP:GNG. MB 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Missouri. MB 05:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've added more sources and info, particularly using a few more articles from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch via Newspapers.com. Bsoyka (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I did not look at previous version, but the article currently is fine. The historic significance of building is proven by expense incurred in saving it. The local historical society which owns/uses the historic building, Historic Florissant (was a redlink, becoming a redirect), can be covered in the same article as done for many similar pairs (and/or the article could be moved in the to the organization name, with a section on its headquarters building). And it is no longer an orphan article. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:47, 28 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!} 05:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody, Sing![edit]

Everybody, Sing! (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 majority of the references in this article are published by ABS-CBN, the creator of "Everybody, Sing!". Those sources are primary, self-published, and not independent. When I tried to find any additional sources for this topic, almost all of them are published by ABS-CBN. EJPPhilippines (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Primary, self-published and non-independent sources are not criteria for a reliable source, therefore I think that these are resonable grounds to believe that the topic does not meet WP:GNG. I PRODed this article before but it was objected. EJPPhilippines (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. EJPPhilippines (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Founded sources for the article: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think these sources have significant coverage. EJPPhilippines (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @EJPPhilippines: I don't know if it really pass GNG. If do not, WP:ATD is redirect to List of programs broadcast by Kapamilya Channel. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage, the Philstar piece is the nearest to a review but more reviews would help, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Partyfrittata (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain why you !voted to keep the article? SBKSPP (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on the significance of the sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NTV with sources presented by SeanJ. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NTV is not an enforced guideline. And the sources still don't seem to talk about the TV program itself.

  • Source No. 1 and 2 is about the second season of the TV program.
  • Source No. 3 is an announcement of TV program's debut, and not the TV program itself.
  • Source No. 4 is published by a company associated with TV5 Network, which would imply that source may not be independent, as the TV program is also aired on TV5.
  • Source No. 5 is about the postponement of the TV program.

  EJPPhilippines (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point, ABS-CBN airs shows on 2 free-to-air channels that they don't own (A2Z and TV5) and one cable channel that they entirely own (Kapamilya Channel). If any of those are deemed not independent as well, we might as well cull ESPN sources in NBA articles, of which obviously we won't ever do. I'd say TV5 and A2Z sources are independent of the show (I don't think they are into "producing" the show). Source #3 and #5 and valid since it is about what the program is fairing; again, we won't remove sources of stating the 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike on TV show programs. I haven't check who published sources #1 to #3, but if those aren't published by ABS-CBN, that's valid as that's exactly the kind of sources you are looking for.

  I know we have to check out WP:RS, but I have to call you out that this is laughingly bordering on absurdity. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I guess that we need to ping other users to share their opinion regarding presented sources. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, founded new sources for the article: [19], [20]. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source #7 does not have enough significant coverage of the TV program, but source #6 is okay. But that does not mean that there will be more independent sources, than sources published by ABS-CBN. I found at least 20 sources published by ABS-CBN, compared to only 7 independent sources found within this AFD. EJPPhilippines (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources presented by SeanJ are definitely reliable and in-depth enough IMV. You can never change my mind. Ever. SBKSPP (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since this article is so well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still seems to be disagreement about the quality of the sources available to support GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Compared to most of the articles in the Philipine TV article space, not seeing an issue with this at all. Sourcing is there and it has enough non-ABS-CBN sources to pass GNG. That, and I see a barren talk page with no engagement since July 2021. The nom is advised to work out their issues there first next time. Nate • (chatter) 21:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, I'm not seeing any problems in regards to these article. If the reference sources is the main issue, I highly suggested to the nominator to remove those instead of opening an AfD discussion that doesn't solve it at all. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:17, 27 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.

Harbin Flight Academy[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harbin Flight Academy (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, with both sources failing WP:SIGCOV in my books. A previous PROD nomination was contested by page author and sole contributor. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and China. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for the reason that the article was only created yesterday. I see from a quick Google search there's more English language sources available, and there's probably a lot more in Chinese that a Chinese-speaking editor has the opportunity to find and use to flesh out the article. Had the article been older and there was time to improve it I'd have agreed with the nom and been inclined towards a delete. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saucysalsa30: Could you please give a few links of sources please? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JML1148 Hi! I didn't search much earlier but here's a few. [21][22][23] Having looked again, there doesn't appear to be too much in English. The first is a report from the US Air Force's China Aerospace Studies Institute which seems to take a lot of interest in the flight academy. Given that the article is only a day old, my assumption is that the article creator plans on adding more sourcing or otherwise improving the article, which was the reason for my vote. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for providing the links. I am not sure if any of the sources meet WP:SIGCOV, although link 2 is borderline. I would encourage the page creator RightQuark to find Chinese-language sources, as they have indicated to me on the talk page that they speak Chinese and English. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will find I've added additional English and Chinese sources and information to the page (now with 18 separate sources). Again, this is not to be understood as an exhaustive list of mentions of the academy, but it is an indicator that the academy does receive significant coverage from varied sources and its page is likely to continue growing. RightQuark (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and there isn't too much in English about the article subject. RightQuark added a lot more sourcing, but how significant and in-depth it is and how reliable and reputable the publication, author(s), and content is of each and if it confirms notability is open to discussion. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage exists in both English and Chinese-language material that the article requires no original research. Its mention is not trivial and constitutes entire sections of official reports such as The People's Liberation Army's 37 Academic Institutions and PLA Air Force: Bomber Force Organization by the China Aerospace Studies Institute (CASI) of the United States Air Force. These official reports, written by the uncontestably most authoritative author on the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), Kenneth W. Allen, are reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (as specified in WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV). Additional information on this subject continues to present itself in Chinese-language news sources and English-language research.

The Harbin Flight Academy is the sole bomber training academy and one of only three flight schools in the Chinese Air Force. As demonstrated by the official research studies by the United States Air Force, knowledge of this institution is integral for understanding of the Chinese Air Force – an organization that has earned new focus in the West and, pending the potential of future conflicts against the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the United States, lacks no notability for an encyclopedia. Those who remain unswayed by this justification would find that an sizable number of air force academies and training schools worldwide already documented on Wikipedia are in need of similar attention. In good faith, I've reorganized the clauses of a sentence in the article's lead to reinforce the already clear significance of being the only institution in the Chinese Air Force to train bomber pilots.

For the second document, it seems you're relying on the number of times the academy is mentioned in full name (likely using Ctrl+F). If you read Sections, 4-27, 4-28, and 4-29 you'll see a section dedicated to the three flight academies which provides seven full-text pages of information on Harbin Flight Academy including personnel, history, the organization structure of the 1950s, early 2000s, post-2012 and the phases of education, recruits, degrees and areas of study, recruitment numbers, and leadership/staff. Further, the overall length of the document is irrelevant because it is dependent on the number and scope of institutions presented. I wouldn't question the notability of George Washington on the fact that he only occupies a few pages in a book on the top 500 most influential military leaders. Here's another report in which Harbin Flight Academy plays a notable role: Initial Fighter Pilot Training in the PLA Air Force. As a English and Chinese reader, I intend to continue incorporating further sources and information into this article — it is only a day old.

SIGCOV requires sources: "[address] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The proposing user writes "I PROD'd this page because the two documents did not meet WP:SIGCOV in my books", but more specificity is required to demonstrate why the article doesn't meet the Wikipedia's enumerated criteria. Are these sources not addressing the topic directly? Not in detail? Original research is needed to extract the content? It's only a trivial mention? RightQuark (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For context what is going on here, I direct other editors to Talk:Harbin Flight Academy. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see plenty of coverage when searching the Chinese name on Baidu: [24]. Some random examples: CCTV report People's Daily Xinhua Jumpytoo Talk 06:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent edits to page, notability and sufficient sources should be safely met. Also don’t think this page condition justified jumping on someone one day after they made the page, there are far less substantive pages deemed worth keeping. (Edit: also those original cites weren’t bad, Kenneth Allen is the definitive English scholar on the PLAAF, and no source I’ve found in Chinese has ever even rivaled his breadth or scope (China's censorship limits this), as such he has near unimpeachable qualifications on the subject.) Abovfold (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is now enough sourcing to establish notability and pass WP:GNG, so I will now be withdrawing my nomination. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:32, 23 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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tombstone Western Film Festival and Symposium[edit]

Tombstone Western Film Festival and Symposium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NEVENTS. Sarrail (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 9 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!} 04:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added some sources to the article. Still not sure if notability is met, but I'll invite others to assess the edited version. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has significant coverage in The New York Times piece added to the article, lesser coverage in The Chicago Tribune and coverage from Arizona newspapers also in the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:54, 16 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!} 04:52, 23 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 argument that this fails NOLYMPICS is compelling, with nobody arguing for a "keep" based on GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Filandra[edit]

Eleni Filandra (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:NTRACK. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 2 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!} 03:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lenghty career on the highest international level, though I don't read Greek sources. Geschichte (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be a lengthy career but how does she meet WP:NTRACK? LibStar (talk) 01:46, 11 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!} 03:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Representing the country in the Olympics is enough to pass the notability. She even placed among the top 8. - The9Man ^(Talk) 17:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOLYMPICS seems to suggest that Filandra would need to get a medal in the Olympics to be automatically notable. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen hundreds of athlete bios pass through AFD since the notability guidelines were revised earlier this year, that is my understanding of the current rules, Spiderone. Mere participation in a notable event is not enough any longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She came 23rd in the Olympics not 8th. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not pass WP:NOLYMPICS as she did not receive a medal, and she also does not pass WP:GNG, a search under the Greek transliteration of her name (Ελένη Φιλάνδρα) brought up nothing but database listings and social media. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Some participating editors are not informed at how notability standards for athletes has drastically changed since last spring.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I believe participation in the Olympics is only notable for a Wikipedia article if you win a Gold, Silver, or Bronze medal. Trillfendi (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There appears to be some sporadic coverage of her performance over the years e.g. [25]. If this is all a bunch of two-sentence articles about her times, I'd regard this as routine coverage not contributing to notability. It does appear to merit a deeper look in Greek though. --GGT (talk) 17:15, 26 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!} 06:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Myers[edit]

Emma Myers (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)

Actor has one notable role and minimal secondary coverage. U-Mos (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The actress meets basic notability guidelines Fendergenderbender (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, one role in Netflix’s second-most popular English-language series. Season 2 isn't announced yet, but looks unlikely that this role will be her last. Nadzik (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I think it os soon for her here, next year or at least after 6 months this topic will be suitable Ze221 (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Her name produces 17 million results on Google. She plays a prominent role in what is now one of Netflix's most popular shows ever and has already been announced to be cast for new roles. Also, the fact that this article has generated over 600 thousand views in less than a month surely tells us something. She's very much notable. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The person meet basic notability guidelines. Miaow 01:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this actress has a role on a mega-popular TV series but notability isn't established for her in this article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I feel like the fact that this person will be more notable in the future means we should keep 'em, albeit I'll admit that we should reconsider if say, the subject dies before they do anything else - 107.190.33.254

• Keep I highly doubt this will be her first and last role after such acclaim already and she easily meets GNG. Nate • (chatter) 04:51, 23 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!} 00:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Albert[edit]

Adrienne Albert (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:NMUSICIAN, longstanding article concerns have not been addressed despite regular attention to the page; most recent additions fail WP:RS and show no evidence of WP:Notability Plutonium27 (talk)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Music. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I de-PROD'd this as I thought it had potential, but after searching and adding some minor mentions to the page I now think she does not meet the notability requirements. DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Entertainment. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article references 3 reliable sources reviews of her compositions (in offline sources) together with articles in instrument specific publications, books and academic journal. There is also an AllMusic biography here and together there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 6 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!} 02:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As for original sumbission for AfD: reasons remain. Plutonium27 (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plutonium27, your deletion nomination is taken as your vote to Delete. You can't cast a vote more than once. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 9 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!} 01:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entire article seems to be a wild exaggeration of Adrienne Albert's career. I could find virtually no reliable sources (other than the surprising Allmusic bio) that provide any independent coverage; most of what I came up with tracked back to her website and/or used the language of her bio. She does not appear to have won an NEA grant -- she may have received a subgrant -- and I could not find any evidence of a significant ASCAP award. JSFarman (talk) 18:34, 27 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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Social Welfare Institute[edit]

Joint Social Welfare Institute (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, does not cite any sources JTZegers (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Costa Rica. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I get dozens of news articles in the last year alone ([26]). Furius (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News, are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search." Which is what I did. Furius (talk) 01:59, 22 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!} 01:20, 9 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!} 01:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No assertion of notability, so fails WP:GNG. Fully unsourced. UtherSRG (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's do this again, then. IMAS is the main social welfare agency in the Costa Rica. Here is its Spanish wikipedia page, which is long and cites sixteen sources [27]. Here is a newspaper article in La Nacion about the dismissal of the IMAS president in 2002, Here is an article reporting the comments of their president about government policy, Here is an article about the resignation of the IMAS president in 2007, Here is an article from 2007 reporting on changes made by the institution to child welfare allowances, here is an article about the appointment of a new president in 2016. From the last month or so here is a story about a funding decision made by IMAS, here is a story about changes to IMAS subsidies in response to inflation, and here is another story about that. It's discussed on pages 103-104 of this book on the government of Costa Rica, in several places in this book on poverty reduction, on pg. 57 on this book on Costa Rican politics, is the subject of this academic article, and this one. GNG is well and truly met. Furius (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be great if some of these sources found their way into the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 23 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!} 00:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J'Dillian[edit]

J'Dillian (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, as all but the first source are related to the subject either being him, his music, an interview or an organisation that he heads, considers unreliable or predatory, and the first not mentioning him. A PROD was contested. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment an earlier version by the same editor was moved to draft on 15 December; I have since redirected it to here. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as promotional, and not clear what the GNG sources are. I don't see where he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Don't see any referencs in external newspapers. The section of name drops for musical influences is original research / COI. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Modern renaissance man eh? Nothing found for GNG streaming sites and such. Very promotional, very much. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, aside from being WP:UPE or WP:COI editing, fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An overwhelmingly obvious attempt at self-promotion and to spread his resume, perhaps in good faith but unaware of how Wikipedia works. This site is not LinkedIn. As an academic myself, I congratulate him for being published in some professional journals, but that does not count for notability here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:07, 23 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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Phillips-Lane[edit]

Joanna Phillips-Lane (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. Sarrail (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe she passes WP:NACTOR as she's had recurring roles in a number of TV series, (see BFI) for example, Brookside, Bread, Capital City and Soldier Soldier. There's newspaper coverage of her in the very limited newspaper archives of the 80s and 90s, some examples: Joanna Thinks Buddha Helped Aberdeen Press and Journal - Tuesday 03 October 1989, "Bread" star plays one for the Rep Dundee Courier - Friday 02 November 1990, Lucky sods get rich in Hull Truck production Reading Evening Post - Friday 31 May 1996 Piecesofuk (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not commenting on the actual article, but 80s/90s newspaper archives, although far from perfect, are a good deal less limited than they were just a couple of years ago - the BNA and newspapers.com *have* done good work on partially filling that digital black hole. RobinCarmody (talk) 12:51, 11 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!} 01:18, 16 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!} 00:31, 23 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.