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!} 22:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's School (Vancouver)[edit]

St. George's School (Vancouver) (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 is currently supported only by primary, self-published sources (not counting citations for famous alumni) and was written in large part by editors with an apparent conflict of interest, and I was unable to find sources establishing notability. Worth mentioning:

• Saints: The Story of St. George's School for Boys: This appears to be an independent publication, but may not establish notability due to the nature of the publisher (they will seemingly publish anything if you pay them for it) and the proliferation of self-published by-alumni-for-alumni books about schools.

• Without Fear Or Favour: A History of St. George's School, 1930-2005: Co-authored by the school and therefore does not establish notability.

• Growing Up British in British Columbia: Boys in Private School: Thesis, primary source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

I was unable to find anything else that could possibly establish notability. Therefore I propose deletion, though I'm mainly looking for some other editors' input here. WPscatter ^t/_c 08:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. WPscatter ^t/_c 08:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments on Jean Barman, Growing Up British in British Columbia: Boys in Private School. (1) You link to a book published by a university press. Many highly valued university press books are edited and revised versions of doctoral theses. This doesn't mean that they are doctoral theses. This particular book has been reviewed in academic journals (whether favourably or unfavourably, I haven't checked). (2) This book doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. Well, if the book can be judged as reliable, then the article may be worth keeping. It makes a lot of claims about the school's importance on the growth of Vancouver around the time of its creation. But even then it would be the only good source the article has. WPscatter ^t/_c 09:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on Growing up British in BC: as I attempt to view this at Google Books, all I'm served are snippets. (Other people, in other parts of the world, may be luckier.) I see from the pile of snippets that the school is mentioned many times, but that's about all. However, the book is also available here at the Internet Archive. A user ID there is easy to get and free of charge; with a user ID you can "borrow" (have an online view of) the book for a short period, again free of charge. And it turns out that yes, there's a lot in this book about this school. (See in particular pages 111–116, 124, and 170–171.) To what degree this material adds up to demonstrating notability is a question I'd rather leave to editors more used to schools articles than I am; but if the article is to remain, worthwhile material for it can certainly be mined from this book. (To me, what's currently in the article looks pretty humdrum, saying that the school currently does what one would anyway assume that schools currently do.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC) slightly rephrased Hoary (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sourcing sufficient for WP:GNG as with pretty much every other secondary school in the English-speaking western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's is most definitely notable — and this article should absolutely NOT be deleted — as many, many famous people have attended this school spanning decades. The school has been a fixture in the community for a long time; it is considered one of the top independent schools on the continent. One00one00one (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One00one00one, what's the meaning of "fixture" in this context, which "community", who considers it so, and which are the reliable sources that state all of this? -- Hoary (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would say this passes GNG and NSCHOOL. It seems to have enough sources and information provided by those sources to make it notable enough.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Above, WP:NSCHOOL is cited. WP:NSCHOOL (which is just one part of WP:ORG) merely says that one or other of WP:GNG and WP:ORG must be met. The latter two are actually pretty similar to each other. One thing that WP:ORG says is No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. I do understand that a number of individuals who themselves merit articles here have gone through this school: what have they written, or been quoted as saying, about it? Where is the disinterested commentary on the place? I do see (in the book Growing up British in BC) disinterested and fairly substantial coverage of the school as it functioned decades ago; however, much of the current article is about the school now or during the last few years; and this is humdrum stuff, largely sourced to the school itself. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as a K-12 private school with almost 100 years of history, it easily meets my long-standing standards for schools. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 29 November 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. Consensus is that sourcing is of insufficient quality and independence. Star Mississippi 04:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley School[edit]

Bentley School (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 private school, doesn't meet WP:NORG. Found no useful sources in Google, Google Books, Google News. Article also appears to have a long history of COI edits from staff members. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Skynxnex (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There are lots of news clippings in Newspapers.com because of its long history as a school (going back to 1920). Cielquiparle (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's still a real place - there are lots of schools on wikipedia - if you're finding issues with WP:POV it would be best just to edit the article instead of deleting it. Marleeashton (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marleeashton: Existence doesn't equal notability; evidence of extensive third-party coverage does. Cielquiparle indicates there is a source that might provide it, although it appears that it's behind a WP:PAYWALL. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have an account with Newspapers and here are the clippings the links will easily convert into references.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/113220462/bentley-school-for-girls-boys/

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/113220577/bentley-school-90th-year/

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/113220683/students-jump-rope-to-raise-hearty-donat/ Marleeashton (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’m sorry, even the newspaper articles read like an advert for the school. I agree with nominator, do not think this school is notable. Yes, it exists, but so do thousands of other schools. Are we going to list them all? Equine-man (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that two of those articles do not count toward notability. The problem is that there are so many others in the first few decades, it will take some time to go through them all. I can't say I'm particularly excited about this article though, so it's quite low on my priority list for research. Equally WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't sufficient justification for deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG as with pretty much any other secondary school in the English-speaking western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom and User:Equine-man. The second Newspapers.com source provided above even says "Our rigorous academic program...." so clearly a PR piece. I also did a Google News search and did not find anything but a blurb in an article about Bay area schools handling COVID and another about a teacher charged with molestation. Neither provide in-depth coverage about the school which fails GNG, much less NCORP which I think is the more relevant notability guideline given it is a private school. S0091 (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails NSCHOOL and my standards for schools for want of reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 29 November 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 Tokyo Revengers. Since it was a split, there is not a consensus that info requires merging. However the redirect is a valid ATD and the delete !votes don't have a reason not to redirect it. Star Mississippi 04:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tokyo Revengers characters[edit]

List of Tokyo Revengers characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not enough content to warrant a split from the Tokyo Revengers article. Xexerss (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as bold split, add copied tags on talk pages, remove information from main. Anime official website has a list of 25 characters, so it is likely going to be big. https://tokyo-revengers-anime.com/character/ Fairly long-running series (29 volumes) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I don't necessarily oppose to have the article eventually, but, as it currently is, it doesn't seem ready for mainspace. Maybe the list should be expanded in the main article of the series or moved as Draft for the time being. Xexerss (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable fictional characters so this fails WP:LSC and the WP:GNG. The references are about the artists or the actors, not about the characters themselves so notability isn't demonstrated so the references don't go towards notability of the cahracters, and fail WP:LISTVERIFY. This is in-universe fan-base cataloging. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would keep, but the page as it is needs a lot of work to demonstrate notability if it were to be kept so it can meet WP:GNG. Maybe demote it to a draft so it can be worked on? MushroomMan674 (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect back to Tokyo Revengers. My BEFORE failed to find RS dealing with characters from that show, so WP:LISTN does not appear to be met. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, I don't see any consensus here. It sounds like if this article kept, it still needs a lot of work done on it to get it into shape.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lists of characters should meet a minimum standard of notability, which this article does not seem to meet. Given that it was a split, I see no point in a merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zxcvbnm. There aren't any sources about these characters and this fails WP:LISTN. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:02, 25 November 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!} 22:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hagit Ben-Yaakov[edit]

Hagit Ben-Yaakov (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Coverage is routine rather than indepth with her as the subject. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I recall that we tend to keep career diplomats' articles at the highest levels. This one is marginal because the coverage is pro forma. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I recall we only keep diplomat articles if there is evidence of significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources except for in New Eastern Europe Mujinga (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No, we don't reflexively keep career diplomats' articles "at the highest levels" — we keep diplomats' articles if they're shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, and don't keep them if they aren't. This one isn't, however: two of the three footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the only one that comes from a real GNG-worthy media outlet just briefly namechecks her existence as the last eight words of an article whose primary subject is somebody else. That's not even close to good enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 29 November 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!} 06:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeonathan Prato[edit]

Jeonathan Prato (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find any coverage. Mainly primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while diplomats are not inherently notable, the subject was ambassador to four different nations over a decade (1960-1963, 1969-1973). I recall that we have tended to keep those articles of career diplomats who served in several positions. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Being ambassador to several nations doesn't necessarily increase notability. We need significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course serving as an ambassador in many countries increases notability versus serving in just one country, keeping other variables constant (importance of countries, years per mission, historical events, consecutive/concurrent). gidonb (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Historical figure. No BLP concern whatsoever. Absolutely no lack of sources! I only added a few. There's much more. gidonb (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nightfur[edit]

Nightfur (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 movie that I am not convinced passes the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. It was PRODed a few years back, but that was contested due to the one review from DVD Talk being a reliable source. However, as far as I can find, that is the only piece of coverage in reliable sources available. I tried various searches trying to find other reviews, and was unable to find any outside of that one. Rotten Tomatoes also lists zero professional reviews for their entry on the film, as well. The single piece of coverage in a reliable source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG, and the writer/director is non-notable themselves, so there is no valid merge target. Rorshacma (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Rorshacma (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not only is it clear that the BEFORE was handled appropriately--I can't find anything more--it also is not clear to me that the film is the primary topic for this name, as there is a Warriors character apparently bearing the same name. eBay and Amazon both offer this for sale, so it's clearly real... but amazingly little on it, with 0 each news or scholar hits. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One reliable review is insufficient for WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, the critic from DVD Talk is probably not nationally known, the requirement for NFILM criteria 1. My WP:BEFORE only found this, a non-RS site without editorial policies, only a vague staff page with the editor-in-chief being an an independent film critic, who is a proud member of the OFCS, in contrast, other writers of the site are self-described as enthusiasts/fans, so the site does not appear to be a subject-matter-expert WP:SPS. VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DVD Talk is pretty selective about its reviewers, so a review from the site would count towards notability. It's just not enough on its own to establish notability. Historically the site has been routinely seen as a RS on here and it's also a site that's frequently referenced in academic and scholarly sources. The specific reviewers aren't really an issue since the site as a whole is reliable. That's like saying that a review from the NYT or Boston Globe isn't usable because the staff reviewer isn't as well known as say, Dennis Harvey or Michiko Kakutani. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ReaderofthePack, thank you for the detailed reply! I had a look at the reviewer qualification, he has a bachelors degree in English and is writing in a WP:RS. DVD Talk has been recommended/mentioned by other RS, e.g., 1, 2, 3, I wasn't contending it was non-RS (though my vague comment might led to misunderstandings, so apologies), but I personally disagree that a review from DVD Talk would count as a nationally known critic, which IMO major nationwide or statewide newspapers, e.g., NYT, Boston Globe, would quality instead. But I should have worded better in that I do believe that the DVD Talk is usable and counts towards WP:GNG ( apologies for my imprecise wording), I just don't know if it qualifies towards WP:NFILM criteria 1 which is probably debatable. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Newspapers aren't really the mainstay of reviews like they used to be. They're still pretty major, but there's been a definite shift to online sites for various reasons, one of which is decreasing print readership. Not all sites are usable, of course, but places like DVD Talk are usable for criteria 1 since they've been widely recognized - including as sources in academic and scholarly sources like this and this. There are some people for these sites that are more recognizable than others, but few places have a dedicated reviewer on staff - even newspapers tend to have more of a "part time" or "gig" writer than a full time employee like they used to. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per my statement above, DVD Talk is a reliable source as they're pretty selective about what gets posted to their site, but it's not enough to establish notability. I did a search for sourcing and found very little. I found some coverage about filming, but that's it. There's nothing to make me believe that there's more coverage out there somewhere, so I think what's on the page is pretty much it and it's not really enough to show notability in my opinion. We have a blog source, a local article about filming, and one good source - definitely not enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:35, 25 November 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!} 22:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erzsébet Gaál[edit]

Erzsébet Gaál (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 I couldnt find anything that gives her credit on google. Professional harpists are usually not notable unless they have done something or created something notable. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 22:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Indiana. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 22:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above nom. Comment it would seem that there are many students of Susann McDonald that have articles here at WP that shouldn't. @HelpingWorld, perhaps you should take a look at the student section who are similar to this BLP. Maineartists (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 23 November 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. Procedural Keep as the nomination has been withdrawn and no one has supported deleting this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vingtaine de Longueville[edit]

Vingtaine de Longueville (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 fails WP:GNG It is a real place but has no signifigant coverage to deem it notable. The source is the same for all the vingtaine articles on the Vingtaine page. If you look their, look at the sources and they are all the same. These articles had no thought put into them. IT passes WP:GEOLAND though, since it is a vingtaine but I couldnt find anything about this vingtaine on google.

I want to withdraw from my nomintation after Curb Safe Charmer debated it and said why it is notable.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 22:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jersey and Islands. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 22:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hello again HelpingWorld. Not being able to find information about a topic on Google doesn't automatically make it non-notable. Please read WP:GOOGLEHITS, which explains why "there are no hits on Google" is not a good argument to make in a deletion discussion. WP:GEOLAND says that "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Presumption means that the article doesn't have to show that there are sources in order not to be deleted - we presume that there are some out there, in the absence of immediate evidence. It is OK that the person that created the article didn't add more to it - see WP:NOTIMELIMIT for an explanation why we don't delete articles that have potential to be expanded, even if they are unsourced or poorly sourced. Nor does it matter that a number of the articles about vingtaines use the same source as a reference - a microfiche in a public library. Offline sources are just as valid as online ones, and WP:RSC says it doesn't matter if a reader would need to fly to Jersey and go to the Jersey Archive to look at the microfiche. Jersey Archive is a reliable source for information about the history of places in Jersey. In these type of articles, it is much better to use an appropriate tag to encourage readers to improve the article than to nominate it for deletion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  comment, good point Curb Safe Charmer is their any way I can withdraw my deletion request? I think it would be good to expand and add to all the articles in the Category:Vingtaines of Jersey `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 07:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @HelpingWorld: Please see WP:WITHDRAWN. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:07, 24 November 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!} 22:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thrall High School[edit]

Thrall High School (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)

Per WP:NSCHOOL: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. This satisfies neither. The sources currently in the article do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Searches did not find sources that satisfy WP:GNG. ProofRobust 22:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Texas. ProofRobust 22:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thanks to Kinu for starting the WP:HEY effort. Enough sources have been added so this article now meets WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG as with pretty much every other secondary school in the English-speaking western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly expanded to the point that its notability seems well-established. I had started looking for sources a few days ago and got sidetracked on commenting here, but it looks like examples I had saved but not clipped were already clipped and included since then, so unfortunately I don't have any additional sources to add, except for maybe this. However even without more sources, what's in the article now is more than sufficient for showing notability. - Aoidh (talk) 06:08, 27 November 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 United States at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Shooting. There is consensus that Anderson does not meet the relevant notability criteria. There is no clear consensus to delete it as there's potential for sourcing. The history is under the redirect if sufficient sourcing comes to fruition. Star Mississippi 04:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Anderson (sport shooter)[edit]

Edwin Anderson (sport shooter) (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:NOLYMPICS. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Olympics, and Georgia (U.S. state). Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United States at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Shooting where a note can be added. This is a reasonable ATD given that he competed in two events and is mentioned on the page in question. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I was able to find an obit here, but not much else. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not sure if there is enough, but there certainly seems to be a fair amount to be found, and I've expanded the article a little. Worth noting that he was known as Ed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a GNG guideline for Military personnel? If a Major makes it, we can keep him. I looked for it, but didn't find one at the GNG page. Maybe they have one in the project Military History? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The SNG for military personnel (WP:NSOLDIER) was depreciated in Feb 2021 ([1]); as such, WP:NBIO currently the applicable guideline. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep; per my comments above, there is certainly some significant coverage and seems like the article could be substantially expanded with more research. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  weak keep as well per the improvements Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:ANYBIO is our guideline. Bruxton (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But he doesn't meet ANYBIO. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:00, 22 November 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} 22:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's irrelevant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could someone with access to the paywalled sources (@Wjemather: perhaps you, as you appear to have added them?) give a brief description of their length and depth coverage? The titles alone are not very helpful, with e.g. the first one appearing to be an obituary of the subject's wife and "Captain Ed L. Anderson Will Participate In Olympic Games" could be anything from two sentences to a full page based on the title alone. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The only source of any depth that is cited is "Captain Ed L. Anderson Will Participate In Olympic Games", which is a substantial article (half a dozen paragraphs) and includes a photo of him – I would say this source meets the bar of significant coverage, whereas the other cited sources are fairly standard one/two short paragraph announcements with basic details, although the wedding announcement does refer to him as "one of the best known military men in the state". I came across many other mentions, especially in relation to various army activities, but haven't the time to dissect them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Ljleppan (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect to United States at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Shooting - Potentially relevant guidelines/policies include WP:GNG, WP:NBASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:NOLYMPIC. There is no specific notability criteria for military personnel (WP:NSOLDIER was an essay and is explicitly deprecated). Inclusion based on ANYBIO is not supported by the article, and I don't think anyone has made a claim for it in this AfD. Similarly, NOLYMPIC does not appear to apply based on the Olympedia source. The rest (GNG, NBASIC and SPORTBASIC) all appear to, in this case, reduce to the standard "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" criteria. Given Wjemather's response above, we appear to have one good source and a smattering of lesser references. In my view, that alone is insufficient. That said, I'd be rather easily persuaded by a showing of perhaps one more very good source (bringing the total to two good ones and a smattering of lesser ones). Please ping me if such a source surfaces, and I'll happily reconsider my !vote. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:29, 25 November 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. Looking at the opinions expressed since the article was basically rewritten after the AFD nomination, I believe the concerns expressed in the nomination have been sufficiently addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard–Yale soccer rivalry[edit]

Harvard–Yale soccer rivalry (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)

Unlike Harvard-Yale football rivalry and possibly Harvard-Yale regatta rivalry, significant secondary coverage does not appear to exist for a association football rivalry between Harvard and Yale, and thus it does not meet WP:GNG. N.b., while Harvard-Yale hockey rivalry's current sourcing is dismal, additional coverage for that is readily available on Google Scholar. There's probably enough coverage for a general Harvard-Yale rivalry (currently redirects to the American football article) or Harvard-Yale sports rivalries article, but I'm not seeing enough for an article on just the soccer rivalry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Added citations from Sports Illustrated and Boston Globe. For decades (through the 1980s), the Harvard-Yale soccer game took place during the same "sports weekend" as The Game (football) and was well attended (~3,500 at each in 1962). Article could use more work, but it looks like there are more sources to sort through via Wikipedia Library and books, etc., also re: the women's soccer matches. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unable to access the Sports Illustrated piece cited (although based on the title, it looks like it's about the schools' rivalry across sports in general?); looking at the Globe piece, I'm not sure it rises to the level of providing significant coverage of the rivalry, as it focuses on specific coverage of that year's matchup rather than the rivalry writ large. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All I'm seeing -- once one discounts the various primary sources, and the several sources that don't discuss this subject at all, as opposed to the more storied football rivalry and the rivalry between the two schools generally -- is routine sports coverage and casual mentions. What is conspicuously lacking is significant coverage of the purported soccer rivalry, and frankly I think this article is an attempt to manufacture something that doesn't really exist. The bar for WP:NRIVALRY is set quite high, and this falls embarrassingly short of it. Ravenswing 00:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not notable, not even pro, and is just pretending its relevant cuz ot the other sports or whatever.Muur (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Citations such as Boston Globe, Sports Illustrated, Evolvements of Early American Foot Ball, etc. easily make this article meet WP:GNG. Furthermore, it is better sourced than its hockey counterpart. Rylesbourne (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which citation do you claim discusses the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires? The Globe citation doesn't discuss it at all. The Evolvements citation, if you actually read it, just says that Yale first fielded a soccer team in 1872 (not 1871, as erroneously claimed in the article); the cite does not mention Harvard at all. [2]. Meeting the GNG requires rather more than "Oooh, the article's reference section has citations to the Globe and SI." Ravenswing 14:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Cielquiparle and Rylesbourne. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you elaborate on what you found compelling, in light of Ravenswing's critique of said arguments? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added more articles from both The New York Times and The Boston Globe, and generally tried to clean up. The best, most in-depth coverage so far is the 1985 New York Times article "Elis Dominate in Lesser Games" which includes a lot about the intramural soccer rivalry. The surprise discovery was Yale senior and future U.S. Senator John Kerry scoring a hat-trick at the Harvard–Yale soccer game for the win in 1965 (which he mentioned in GQ). There are still a lot of clippings and sources to go through so I'll update if there is anything else that looks particularly strong. It would be nice if we had one more like that 1985 New York Times one, but IMO this passes now in aggregate even without. (I've even removed the problematic source mentioned above and replaced with other books.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and expand as a general Harvard-Yale rivalry article. Not enough coverage about the soccer rivalry that I can see. GiantSnowman 21:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with Harvard-Yale rivalry (as a concept) is that it is way too broad, and it will lead to a complete mess, like the Oxford-Cambridge rivalry article that was nominated for deletion, got kept, and then had to be stripped down. (The Harvard-Yale rivalry article now is focused on gridiron football and is already huge.) IMO, it's better to have the specific sports rivalries separate from the academic rivalries between the schools, and only if they are notable. (Anyway... We still have 5 more days to fix.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The other thing I would add is that given the time period covered by this topic (well over 100 years), this is getting into historical research, so it requires more than looking up sources in Google; it requires searching other databases and books and libraries, etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For my part, I am still not seeing anything beyond routine sports coverage -- and not even of varsity action, with the NYT article discussing intramural games! -- of the sort that would apply to any other soccer game Yale played against any other college. Breaking notable articles into smaller chunks only works if the smaller chunks are in of themselves notable, and this just isn't. If you're that motivated to continue researching this subject, I've no objection to draftifying it to your user space if you insist on maintaining it as soccer-only, but the answer to the issue here isn't to keep the article until you find qualifying sources. It's to delete the article until you do. Ravenswing 00:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per work done by User:Cielquiparle. Initially the article suffered significantly from an overreliance on primary sources, but the sourcing looks to have been tightened up and expanding to include reliable secondary sources. Definitely worth noting that many of the reliable sources discussing the rivalry will inevitably mix with the American football rivalry due to the history of each sport in America, but it seems to have enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:43, 23 November 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 substantial work on this article since the nomination addresses the nominator's concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Burak[edit]

Rita Burak (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 government bureaucrat, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing our inclusion criteria for non-elected government officials. The notability claim here is that she's "current chair of the board" of a public corporation, except that's outdated as she left that role almost 15 years ago (and even weirder, she left that role before this article was even created, meaning it was already wrong about her "current" status from day one) -- but the referencing isn't getting her over WP:GNG for it, as it consists of one entry in a "who's who" (which has long been deprecated as not enough to carry notability all by itself) and a bunch of primary source "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of her own former employers.
And even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't Google considering how long ago she left the Hydro One role, I'm finding a lot of glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things, but no real GNG-building coverage about her as a subject.
There just isn't anything here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better referencing than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have found many sources, in books and the newspapers, on her work as cabinet secretary under Mike Harris, a politician from Ontario. These are now in the article, and I invite Bearcat to consider if this now well-sourced enough to withdraw the AfD nomination. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - thanks to improvements by DaffodilOcean Mujinga (talk) 22:22, 24 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PMODE[edit]

PMODE (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)

PMode is an individual software product that is listed as an entry in the greater article DOS_extender. This obscure entry lacks notability, does not cite sources, and thus contains original research. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unsourced article which doesn't meet WP:GNG. My search for sources was unsuccessful. ProofRobust 22:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At first, a redirect to the DOS extender article seems to be a sensible choice, but I was not able to find any RS with broader coverage of the article subject. I'm not sure, if it would be DUE to even mention it there (DOS extender article). Pavlor (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was being incremental in my own approach in saying a single item in a group was not notable; I cannot say whether or not a larger group of the same type of obsolete "utility" program is notable. Are the individual items notable? to me not. Is a whole listing of similar programs notable? I don't know. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Could be promotional but if it isn't it still fails GNG.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 04:12, 29 November 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!} 22:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esen Altuğ[edit]

Esen Altuğ (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:GNG. Kadı Message 16:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Turkey. Kadı Message 16:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Diplomats are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability — but three of the five footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the two that actually come from real WP:GNG-worthy media both just represent her being quoted as a giver of opinion rather than having the significance of her work analyzed. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better Turkish-language skills than I've got can find better sourcing, but this as written isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 29 November 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 Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia. As an aside (directed at no one in particular), it's worrisome to see women's articles redirected to their husbands' article as seems to happen fairly often in AFD world. I think Merge would be better as a Redirect basically erases them and their lives. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Victoria Romanovna[edit]

Princess Victoria Romanovna (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 is very little here to suggest she meets WP:NBIO. Most sources used are unreliable (instagram, subject's homepage, etc.). The best source I found is a half-interview with her family, including her, in Vice [3]. I am afraid that's not enough. Her nobility status is mostly WP:INHERITED, plus Romanov's are no longer a ruling dynasty anywhere so it's just old celebrity trivia. Perhaps redirecting to her husband, Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia, who appears a bit more notable, makes sense. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, Italy, and Russia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems fine as discussed above. Between the two of them, there might be an article if we combined them. Each one isn't at GNG by their lonesome I think. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 22 November 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) 14:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adiposopathy[edit]

Adiposopathy (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 was declined for prod because it is not eligible having been previously deleted at AFD. The following is the prod rationale -

The article relies on primary sources WP:PRIMARY and gives undue emphasis to the ideas of Harold Bays. Messages on the talk page indicate that several editors believe that the article should be deleted, and none have suggested any reason that the article should continue to exist. Factual accuracy has been disputed for over a year. The article was proposed for deletion (and the result was Delete) in 2008 because the term was a non-notable neologism, and the current article appears to have the same problems. (user:ParticipantObserver)

SpinningSpark 14:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to metabolic syndrome. The term itself seems suspect, but the combination of obesity, hypertension and diabetes is a known medical issue. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And only the first source uses the term, the rest seem to be drawing on "Metabolic Syndrome" to uses as sources here, when the articles don't use this term. It's trying to prove something that isn't said in the sources used I think. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The title is not an established term, and it's not our business to promote new words for known issues or combinations of issues. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't redirect from a bad term such as this. It's all original research and novel ideas not suitable for an encyclopedia.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the term seems to have gained little to no traction. Metabolic syndrome is the proper and established way of discussing this concept. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:35, 23 November 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. As the proposed redirect target is now, itself, a redirect, and no suitable alternative presents itself, I agree that this effectively defaults to delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect later if a suitable alternative target is created, however. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fauldhouse Amateurs F.C.[edit]

Fauldhouse Amateurs F.C. (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 does not appear to satisfy current WP:GNG grounds for inclusion. Had a look at the google results, I didn't see anywhere near the right results and considering how low down the league ladder this team is, completely fails all the criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing to indicate notability in a websearch. This club plays at a very low level, so it's hardly surprising they aren't the subject of much media coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, not enough in-depth coverage to show notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lothian & Edinburgh Amateur Football Association - possible search term, but not independently notable. GiantSnowman 19:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - reply @GiantSnowman: How is Lothian & Edinburgh Amateur Football Association page notable? It only has one primary link on the page and nothing in-depth about the association. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It might well not be - I haven't looked into it. GiantSnowman 18:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lothian & Edinburgh Amateur Football Association for now- if that target page isn't notable, that's a separate discussion. But this article isn't notable, but is a valid redirect to the FA that the team plays in. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that there is a real lack of good coverage here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The club does not seem to have the level of notability that would be needed for an article (eg no major coverage and no major honours). Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lothian & Edinburgh Amateur Football Association, clearly non-notable, but there is no reason not to have a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested redirect target is itself likely to be redirected to Scottish Amateur Football Association as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lothian & Edinburgh Amateur Football Association. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as redirect, which still appears valid to me, but @Govvy: raised a valid question on my Talk. Their points are beyond what I'm able to clear up and don't want to leave an error in place, so relisting for someone else's assessment. Thanks, Govvy for flagging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - for what it's worth, I would probably say that this defaults to a 'delete' outcome. Lothian & Edinburgh Amateur Football Association no longer exists an article and the new target would be Scottish Amateur Football Association which is wholly inappropriate as a redirect target as there is not even a mention of Fauldhouse Amateurs at that article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 25 November 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. Newly discovered sources seem to establish notability (as I read this discussion). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Edwards (snooker player)[edit]

Craig Edwards (snooker player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

My WP:BEFORE search did not uncover sources that would demonstrate notability. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, this is a weird one - I did a bit of a search and it looks they now both run a website and write books. this review is of his website. and this small bio there's also something at this source that I can't read. I suspect there's also quite a lot of offline sources, as I doubt that in 1991 no one cared that there was a debutant at the world championship. Whilst I realise the article does need to meet GNG, we do have WP:NCUE which suggests that a person who has appeared at the world championships is very likely notable. I suspect this person was covered in the press around the 1991 period, but I haven't yet checked BNA for that time period. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Straits Times article is available here. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - [4], [5], [6]. There's quite a bit of mentions on BNA, and I suspect that means that there is coverage in sports related UK based press. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - newspaper coverage establishes notability. Garuda3 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting Empowerment Through Awareness of Lesbian and Bisexual Women[edit]

Promoting Empowerment Through Awareness of Lesbian and Bisexual Women (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, WP:SIGCOV. Predominace of company website refs and some interviews. scope_creep^Talk 12:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belize. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though if a good redirect target is found I'd be open to redirect this page and selectively merging a few short sentences that would be WP:DUE. This covers Petal in decent detail, though, on second look it could be press-release/routine announcement like that could fail WP:CORPDEPTH e.g., PETAL’s primary objective is to empower women particularly Lesbian and Bisexual women by increasing their knowledge of a wide cross section of issues that impact them direct /indirectly is exceedingly similar to PETAL’s aim, like its name stipulates, is to empower women – particularly lesbian and bisexual women – by increasing their knowledge of a wide cross section of issues that impact them, directly or indirectly from their own Facebook page, it also promotionally links to the site's email under contact details. Therefore, whether this is a completely independent source that constitutes of significant coverage meeting WP:CORPDEPTH is dubious IMO. Reference 2 covers the organisation in decent detail, however, it is interview-like, primarily quotes from the founder and also covering the founder's personal life and general views instead of being exclusively about the company, making WP:CORPDEPTH debatable. With only two references that at best debatably/probably not passes WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NCORP is likely failed. I discussed with the creator to potentially merge/redirect this to somewhere as a WP:ATD, e.g., List of LGBT rights organisations in Belize, though that has been draftified as well into Draft:List of LGBT rights organisations in Belize. VickKiang (talk) 20:43, 22 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

¿¡Revolución!?[edit]

¿¡Revolución!? (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:NFOE. The only source in the article is a dead link of a review of the film, and the film does not seem to have been widely distributed or participated in festivals, NFOE attributes. I have failed to find other independent sources about the documentary. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Politics, Canada, and Venezuela. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. I've fixed the dead review ref, and found an interview in a Montreal paper where he mentions the film in passing, but can't find SIGCOV online to suggest that this meets WP:NFILM. It was reportedly shown at two notable Montreal film festivals, but then seems to have retired quietly. The filmmaker might be notable though: I've linked to the existing French WP article about him, and can see enough reliable sources that he might pass WP:BIO. Storchy (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Storchy: Do you think the multiple reviews as linked below would be adequate in your opinion? Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping VickKiang. And thanks to User:Goldsztajn, for finding multiple reviews in reliable sources, overseas festivals, and TV screenings. Those demonstrate adequate notability by WP:NFILM. Changing my position to Keep. Storchy (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Films aren't all automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they're minimally verifiable as existing — but there isn't sufficient sourcing here, or locatable elsewhere, to get this over WP:NFO on "because media coverage exists" grounds, and there's no indication of notable awards to get it over the "notable because awards" option either. Simply screening at film festivals isn't automatically enough in and of itself, if the film doesn't have enough coverage (e.g. film reviews in real media) about its screenings at film festivals. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's two sources in the article, links for both worked for me (one is archived). I found multiple sources with reviews of the film (NB the interview article contains a significant introduction with analysis of the film). Passes the WP:GNG.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More: Review of DVD release of the film,^[1] screened at the 2007 Bergen International Film Festival,^[2] 2007/2008 Canadian TV screenings.^[3][4]

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think Goldsztajn's sources (especially The Globe and Mail, the Edmonton Journal, and the National Post) are enough to meet WP:NFILM/the GNG, and there are others out there as well, e.g. a review by Alison Gilmor in the Winnipeg Free Press available at ProQuest 752215004. On balance, probably notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Commnet WP:NFOE establishes that reviews should be done by nationally known critics, or receive a significant award. From the sources, I fail to see in the sources that the film has even been nominated in relation to its screenings. --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a misconstruing of NFOE. A failure to satisfy a subject specific notability guideline does not disqualify an article that satisfies the GNG. Moreover, the criteria elaborated in NFOE are possible alternatives for establishing notability, not mandatory for establishing notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The multiple reviews linked, 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, appear to be lengthy enough (significantly longer than 100 words) to pass WP:SIGCOV, they do not fall under Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories... per WP:GNG. The sources appear to be WP:RS; The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of record, Toronto Star, Edmonton Journal, National Post, and L'aut'journal all appear to be credible newspapers that appear to meet WP:NEWSORG and demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally, the Proquest ref links to Winnipeg Free Press, a broadsheet that also appears to meet WP:NEWSORG. Moreover, Now (newspaper) is probably reliable, though I didn't locate editorial policies, only a FAQ. Nevertheless, seven reviews are more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG. WP:NFILM criteria 1 is debatable, though I would like to opine that critics from The Globe and Mail, a Newspaper of record, and Toronto Star, one of the highest papers per List of newspapers in Canada by circulation, count as nationally known critics, making WP:NFILM criteria 1 likely met. WP:NFILM criteria 2 is not satisfied but that is not mandatory, given WP:GNG is definitely met and WP:NFILM criteria 1 is likely passed. VickKiang (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 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 procedural keep. As warned, nominator has not advanced a reason for deletion in their own words, so closing this because this is time-wasting, and also, not today Larry Sanger (the devil of Wikipedia 😉)! (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 20:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MNI – Market News (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)

We regard the wikipedia article as non-notable and we want the article to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollytrinity (talk • contribs)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and United Kingdom. Storchy (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is an odd nomination, created in the first and only two edits of a new account. I've fixed the nomination and added it to the deletion log, as described at WP:AFDHOWTO, and notified the article creator, as simple courtesy might suggest. @Hollytrinity:, can you please expand on your nomination? Why is it not notable by Wikipedia's notability guidelines? And who is "we"? Storchy (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject is not notable enough and propose that the article be deleted on those grounds. Hollytrinity (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes you mentioned that, but how is it not notable? Which of Wikipedia's notability guidelines is it failing to meet? And who is "we"? Storchy (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject needs to have had non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources, which it does not have. Hollytrinity (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard Hollytrinity (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep Shared accounts speaking in the royal we are simply not allowed and no reason for deletion outside cut-and-pastes has been advanced. I will close this myself unless the nominator gives a proper deletion rationale. Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the "we" is an attempt at humor, the red link user name being holytrinity. Divine intervention in Wiki is a thing now? Please forgive our transgressions, oh God of Wiki (wouldn't that be Jimbo Wales?) Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, the wikipedia article is non-notable and heavily biased with unreliable sources.

  According to Wiki guidelines: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. Once again, I request this article to be deleted. Hollytrinity (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard Hollytrinity (talk) 12:24, 23 November 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 KDE. ✗plicit 12:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitle Composer[edit]

Subtitle Composer (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:NPRODUCT. Current references are routine filles/multimedia failing WP:SIGCOV or non-independent sites, such as its own site and KDE Frameworks). Therefore, WP:NPRODUCT is failed, my WP:BEFORE found non-reliable, non-SIGCOV listicles, e.g., 1, 2, 3. This page was deprodded due to a non-RS site with no editorial policies an article from a site with editorial ethics but is mostly routine instructions on how to install and uninstall, hence non-SIGCOV. The existence of self-published user forums are insufficient, along with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. VickKiang (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found references/articles:

- ubunlog.com website blog - editorial ethics page
- Latinoware 2022 demonstration
- youtube video review
- linux mint community community reviews
- that this project became part of KDE recently, its inclusion was proposed in 2019 and first version released under KDE umbrella was in 2020
- mentions in research papers/articles and books

Maxrd2 (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions, routine updates, and user/YouTube/WordPress reviews/demonstrations are obviously insufficient for WP:NPRODUCT. VickKiang (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to KDE - it's a fairly minor part of the KDE community output, there's very little independent RS that show it is notable. It is true, as above, that there are mentions in scholarly papers - but these appear to me to be just that. JMWt (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this. Merging over deletion should be preferred. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 00:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea, as nom I also agree with a merge/redirect. VickKiang (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Rothery[edit]

William Rothery (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)

Sole source for subject is not just from a National Biography entry from 120 years ago, but in fact the FATHER of a subject of a National Biography entry ca. 1900. Notability thus does not meet WP:ANYBIO, and anyway his actual contributions to government seem scant. JJLiu112 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and England. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have added references on the subject's activities in government regarding the slave trade. Clearly a significant functionary on that topic, though that may not be sufficient for biographical notability here. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He had a full obituary in The Times. We have generally considered that an obituary in a major newspaper is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As mentioned above a substantial obituary was published in the Times. He also has an entry in the ODNB, even though it's included within his son's entry about half of the biography is about William Piecesofuk (talk) 15:37, 23 November 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!} 06:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oxland[edit]

Oxland (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 couldnt find anything that made this building notable, I couldnt even find if it was actually added to the National Register of Historic Places. It does not fail WP:GNG but it is somewhat unnotable. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Louisiana. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it was on the NRHP per WP:GEOFEAT. And it certainly appears to have been. Looks like it was probably delisted because it's been allowed to fall into ruin, but notability is not temporary. It does not fail WP:GNG but it is somewhat unnotable seems to be a bit of a subjective statement. If it passes GNG then what's the problem other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nom says it meets the GNG. It is therefore notable. JMWt (talk) 11:16, 22 November 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!} 04:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davaidasha[edit]

Davaidasha (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)

Sourced to interviews, likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO. KH-1 (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Mongolia. KH-1 (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't consider myself an expert in Mongolian popular music, but I didn't find much of anything for this singer. No idea how RS the ones used to create the article are, but on the surface it appears vaguely like promotion. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 22 November 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!} 06:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Child's Dream Foundation[edit]

Child's Dream Foundation (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:ORG. No significant third party coverage. Mainly primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. The HuffPost source is also primary, as it's an interview with the founder on the "now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform". Can't find any independent SIGCOV of this group in English-language RS, just passing mentions in articles (and books) about other topics. Storchy (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and User:Storchy. Sources are primary, brief mentions or not reliable. S0091 (talk) 21:15, 28 November 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 Athletics in Italy. More input here would have been optimal, but that hasn't particularly occurred. Redirection is a reasonable compromise in my view, relevant to the input that has occurred here. The nomination has not been countered, and despite the views of the keep !voter, independent sources that provide significant coverage have not been provided and may not be existent. The notion of redirection is in accordance with WP:ATD-R, and leaves open an option for some of the content to be selectively merged, as suggested by the opiner for redirection herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Winter Throwing Championships[edit]

Italian Winter Throwing Championships (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:SPORTSEVENT. Just a results listing. Almost all the sources are primary from the Italian Athletics Federation. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep strongly I would like to point out the not very nice behavior of the User:LibStar who, despite being me the creator of the page, did not warn me of the deletion. Secondly, the sources are authoritative precisely because they are all from the federation that organizes it. Third: it is more about the list of winners because that must be this type of page. Last but not least, the page of a national championship is wrong to be deleted because otherwise all in Category:National athletics competitions should be. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant third party coverage to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT? Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look for example at this page of the same category, does it seem more significant to you? Look at how many red links of Egyptian athletes, but do you know that some of the athletes of the page you want to delete have won medals in world or Olympic events? You "erasers at any cost" sometimes shift the focus, you are not able to... "think three-dimensionally" (cit. Back to the Future). --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you think another article is not notable, nominate it for deletion. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALLORNOTHING applies here too to your reasoning. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but I would never allow myself to ask the delation of a Wikipedia article... human beings are not all the same, everyone has their own modus operandi... their own morality, their own ethics. For example, I have respect for people's work and the desire to belittle it is not one of my priorities. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Athletics in Italy with a 1-2 sentence mention of this competition in that page. Fails WP:GNG with no independent WP:SIGCOV found on a basic Google search. I could possibly see some coverage being out there so please ping me if anything is found. Frank Anchor 12:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 15 November 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!} 05:34, 22 November 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 Cyanobacteria. Star Mississippi 04:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (dietary supplement)[edit]

Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (dietary supplement) (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 is redundant to Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, riddled with advertising, and potentially misleading, as mentioned by this post to the talk page, so I'm opening up this AfD discussion. Book909 (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to cyanobacteria. This looks like something that started as an advertisement then got mooshed together with scientific stuff to create this mess of an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, is there a proposal to Redirect this article to Cyanobacteria?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 22 November 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!} 04:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frog Commissary[edit]

Frog Commissary (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 promotional article with only WP:LOCALCOVERAGE that does not pass WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, and Pennsylvania. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. ProofRobust 17:23, 22 November 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!} 04:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roni Tran Binh Trong[edit]

Roni Tran Binh Trong (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:SINGER. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cannot find sufficient independent, reliable coverage to justify an article under WP:GNG or WP:NSINGER in English, Finnish, or Vietnamese. Some press-release stuff turns up, but nothing that could meet WP:SIRS. It's possible I've missed some Finnish-language material, but can't support keeping on that basis alone. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep In general, there are a billion shorter tabloid-type stories from around 2005-2007, see e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. There's probably some argument to be made that these could be ignored as being individually short and/or something along the lines of WP:BIO1E. But some of the coverage appears to have been more lasting and/or otherwise independent from the contestant status:
  • Helsingin Sanomat [16] stating he was the Vietnamese Person of the Year in 2005
  • Iltalehti: [17] revisits him in 2020
  • Ilta-Sanomat: [18] from 2015
  • MTV Uutiset: [19] from 2016. Says it's based on another article in Seiska but the link doesn't work.
  • Savon Sanomat: [20], 2009 but very short

Taken as a whole, I find myself a bit borderline on this, but leaning towards a keep. Hence, "weak keep" at this point. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the above is found insufficient, I'd propose to redirect to Idols (Finnish TV series) per both WP:ATD-R and WP:REALITYSINGER. Ljleppan (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the sources given above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the sources identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Celli[edit]

Alberto Celli (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 about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Article was kept at AfD previously in 2010 prior to NSPORTS explicitly requiring that the GNG be met (I !voted to keep at the time). No evidence of WP:SIRS was found in 2010, and nothing has been added to the article since then or turned up in my BEFORE searches which indicate this footballer is the subject of anything but routine and trivial coverage such as match reports, database entries and the like. Jogurney (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find anything other than stats sites like So Foot. A possible WP:ATD would be a redirect to List of San Marino international footballers which does mention him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 22 November 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'm taking action on the Keep proposals and leaving any possible Renaming to the editors here to undertake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wahweap, Arizona[edit]

Wahweap, 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)

this is a recreation area/resort on Lake Powell, not a settlement. It would seem nice enough if the lake level is sufficiently high, but it's not notable as such, and certainly doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND. Mangoe (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I guess? This one seems to at least approach WP:GEOLAND, or maybe I'm just miscalibrated from seeing a bunch of outright nonexistent Arizona towns recently, and surprised to see any coverage at all :)

I found one source with a nontrivial history of the place: Kupel, Douglas E. “PRESENT AT THE CREATION: Art Greene and the Development of Recreational Facilities on Lake Powell.” The Journal of Arizona History 44, no. 4 (2003): 375–92. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41696806.

But also, it's a terribly boring story of some guy showing up and building a tourist town, and anything we could add to that probably approaches WP:TRAVELGUIDE. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to be a similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullfrog, Utah. An article could be warranted under a different name and concept, but not as a community. Could also be merged to Lake_Powell#Development or Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Reywas92^Talk 15:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I wouldn't be opposed to refocusing it or renaming it to Wahweap Marina, which is Wahweap's main attraction. Its a sturdy little put-in on lake Powell, with a solid contingent of houseboats serving as permanent residences. I got 859 news results on Google for it. Compared to the other Arizona place names that are just railroad sidings, Wahweap is an actual place that does brisk business (or at least does when the lake has water...) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It even has a climate box, and how about adding some of these news references to it? B137 (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Delete, Keep and Rename options were all proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename. Wahweap Creek says it empties into Wahweap Bay, location of Wahweap Marina. It pipes Wahweap Marina to Wahweap, Lake Powell which redirects to Lake Powell. All this should be fixed and point to this article, renamed to Wahweap Marina where it could be expanded to talk about the number of houseboats there, the campground/RV park. Searching indicates Wahweap primarily means the marina, so I don't see that this could be covered as a populated place but as a recreation area. MB 18:28, 24 November 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!} 03:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don Markland[edit]

Don Markland (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)

Lacks significant coverage in independent RS, likely to fail WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Forbes article is by a "brand contributor" and is not under Forbes editorial control (promo). The Startup Reporter is a site where startups can set up their own web sites. I don't find anything else that could be considered a reliable source. This appears to be WP:PROMO. Lamona (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:MILL and not meeting the minimum of being notable and lacking significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. --Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person is not notable and does not appear to have attained a significant reliable source media coverage threshold. The article cited appears to be a paid promotional piece and does not indicate merit of Wikipedia coverage or reasons for keeping the article about Markland. I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:20, 27 November 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 International Basketball League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hub City Hurricanes[edit]

Hub City Hurricanes (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 about a basketball team that only existed for one year. Can't find anything to prove it's notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to International Basketball League or Delete. Lacks WP:SIGCOV to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 12:14, 22 November 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!} 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Roy Clark Method[edit]

The Roy Clark Method (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:NBAND. Can't find anything at all online about them; written by a near-SPA with a username related to the band's home state; don't ever appear to have been noticed outside of their home town; entirely sourced to non-RS, mostly blogs by the band members which have been completely deleted and purged, so that even the archive versions no longer exist... I think you know where we are going with this, but let's do this AfD properly. Richard3120 (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I too have searched and have been unable to come up with any sources that would help towards WP:GNG notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 22 November 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!} 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

André Kërr[edit]

André Kërr (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 notability, no good source, propaganda JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. One passing mention. Rest seem self-promotional at best. Appears to have been created (along with the related Academia Brasileira de Astrologia Védica) by the subject. —

Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. ProofRobust 18:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Astrology, Hinduism, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Deletion based on argumentum ad ignorantum, if you don't understand the topic you can't just delete the full article, there is several pages of jyotisha authors that has the same level of references and you can find here on Wikipedia, you have the biggest institution in the country referencing the author as notable, maybe you can edit in the article what you think is propaganda, but the whole page is not propaganda itself. --ThelemaSanskrit93 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC) (blocked sockmaster)[reply]
• Keep - Meet WP:GNG. Good source in a big portal [21] that agree with his notability and ABAV, the biggest institution of Vedic Astrology in Brazil, has an article about him.--ClaraCastilho79 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC) (blocked sock of ThelemaSanskrit93)[reply]
• Keep - The author is a best-seller in Vedic Astrology and there is great websites of Brazil specialized in the theme that agrees with his notability, like ABAV. User that is requesting deletion doesn't have any interest in the topic and there is no knowlege about it. If someone thinks that the page is not neutral, because there is only good things about the author, you should erase this part of the text, but there is no need to delete the whole page. MaryaReginaBR (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC) (blocked sock of ThelemaSanskrit93)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N and any other notability criteria. The article doesn't have even a single reliable source, all the keep votes are likely from paid editors (most likely socks) and two of the accounts (ClaraCastilho79 and MaryaReginaBR) were created solely to vote in this AfD and in another one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academia Brasileira de Astrologia Védica) related to this same person. Obvious case of WP:SOAPBOX. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 22:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Accounts ClaraCastilho79 and MaryaReginaBR are proven socks of ThelemaSanskrit93. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 15:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as classic vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 22:26, 26 November 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 Neil O'Leary#2019. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Waterbury, Connecticut, mayoral election[edit]

2019 Waterbury, Connecticut, mayoral election (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)

Stub article on minor non-notable election. Content has been merged to Neil O'Leary already. SecretName101 (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Relevant content has been merged to an appropriate article, a standalone page is unnecessary and unwarranted. Sal2100 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Neil O'Leary#2019, where the election is covered in our encyclopedia. A standalone page is unnecessary and not warranted for this and the election fails WP:NEVENT's criterion of WP:GEOSCOPE. However, there is coverage of this election in the context of the politician's electoral history, so a redirect to that location makes sense. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As another reason to redirect rather than delete, there is an indication in the nominating statement that content has been merged to the article on Neil O'Leary. Per WP:COPYWITHIN, we need to preserve the page history in order that proper attribution to the writers of the page nominated for deleetion can be maintained. Failure to do so would risk running afoul of the requirements at WP:C#Reusers' rights and obligations. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above. Edge3 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 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 01:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam School[edit]

Gautam School (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:NORG. Only ref is self-published (school website), searching does not find in-depth independent coverage. MB 01:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nepal. MB 01:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Some coverage floating around via Nepalese sources ie here but overall there is very little coverage and what exists is neither in-depth of of significance. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NSCHOOL - the school must satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NORG or both. This school doesn't satisfy any of these guidelines. ProofRobust 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 22 November 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!} 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look Up![edit]

Look Up! (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)

Zero in-depth coverage about this term. Seems to be a bit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Especially since a significant portion of the piece is unsourced. Currently, over half of the references do not even mention the term. Of the remaining, none talk about it in-depth. Moved to draft in the hopes of improvement, but was contested without improvement. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looked through the cited sources. None of them mention the term 'Look Up!' as it's talked about in the article. The sources are being stretched into something they never remotely mentioned. It's way more than just a bit of synth. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 02:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 22 November 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 Gaming computer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiast computing[edit]

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

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

The article, as an essay, is entirely original research. Provided links in footnotes are random and do not support the topic (they speak to individual hardware items in many cases). As a hobby there are people, and gamers, that build their own computers with high end components. As indicated in the article gaming computer covers the same subject in an encyclopedic way. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Gaming computer, a quick search shows that it exists, but that it is nothing notable. Some of the parts can possibly merged to Gaming computer article though Roost^T_C(Please ping me) 01:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed and updated the lead, to current technology, to include use cases beyond gaming. In my opinion, The article is still an essay. 감사합니다 (I know the english transliteration) and regards. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some work went into this, but it is, at heart, an essay. Joyous! | Talk 00:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to gaming computer. That's clearly the focus of this article, occasional hints at SETI@home notwithstanding. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:42, 27 November 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.