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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 10:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tositsa Baron Museum of Metsovo[edit]

Tositsa Baron Museum of Metsovo (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 significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. I would reconsider if someone can find sources in Greek. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. CastJared (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Museums and libraries, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the museum's name in Greek is Λαογραφικό Μουσείο Μετσόβου (Αρχοντικό Τοσίτσα). It has no hits that I can see on Google Books, and certainly no WP:SIGCOV (as far as I can tell, most of those 'hits' mention Metsovo and another folk museum somewhere else). Greek Wikipedia is usually pretty good at having at least something on archaeological matters, and doesn't seem to have an article on this museum; it's only mentioned in passing in their article on Metsovo itself. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Failed to find any significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to BoJack Horseman (season 1). ✗plicit 23:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our A-Story Is a 'D' Story[edit]

Our A-Story Is a 'D' Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Tagged for notability since 2019. A BEFORE yielded zero reliable and independent reviews.

This episode is already covered in BoJack Horseman (season 1), so a REDIRECT may be a viable WP:ATD. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect per nom. 174.27.4.51 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect seems fine, I can't see any sourcing showing this episode is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect just like what you said... 174.27.4.51 (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to BoJack Horseman (season 1).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Convert to navigation template, then delete‎. Please make a speedy deletion request with reference to this AfD after the conversion is complete. Sandstein 09:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table of years in LGBT rights[edit]

Table of years in LGBT rights (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)

Nothing here that isn't already in List of years in LGBT rights, and nothing to merge. Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Discrimination, History, Law, and Sexuality and gender. Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps emblematic of a larger problem: I typed "Table of years in" in the search bar and clicked on the first suggested topic, which was Table of years in literature. Sure enough, that seems to be a proper subset of List of years in literature, although the former is organized more compactly. Seems to me in that case, switching the latter to contain a Compact ToC looking much like the former (or perhaps greater compactness, starting with century, then maybe decades as it got closer to present time, then years) would be a better solution. I don't see the point of having both articles. A systematic review of matching titles of the form Table of years in and List of years in might turn up more of these. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to template, then delete this -- This is essentially a navigational tool, leading to articles such as 20xx in LGBT rights. The usual way to handle this issue is via a template that facilitates such navigation, placed in each of the destination articles. My personal inclination would be plain deletion, but that reflects my own POV on the subject, which is why I rarely comment on LGBT articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to template as per above. Did not see any reason to keep the article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Toronto District School Board. ✗plicit 23:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zion Heights Middle School[edit]

Zion Heights Middle 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 school (one of many middle schools in one of many public school districts in one of many countries). No specific claims of notability. DMacks (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's more or less standard practice at AfD to redirect lower US or Canadian schools with no showing of notability to the article on their administrative authority. It's such a common practice that many editors will simply do it BOLDly and only go to AfD if they encounter resistance. I did it with a US middle school on PROD yesterday. Just an FYI. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Toronto District School Board.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Toronto District School Board as an ATD per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This school is notable:

Notability in Science: In 2002, Zion placed second in the Exploravision competition, with their theoretical innovation on the prosthetic arm.

Musical Notability: The orchestra has participated and won first place in the Kiwanis music festival several times in the past few years. In 2009, Zion's senior stage band won gold at MusicFest Canada and was invited to play in the national competition in May. In 2012, Zion's Junior stage band won gold at Musicfest Canada in the national competition. In 2013, Zion's Senior stage band will win another gold at the upcoming Musicfest Canada. On April 11, 2014, the Senior Orchestra received gold at the Ontario Strings Association competition.([[Zion Heights Middle School#:~:text=and Persian.-,Academics,-[edit]|Academics]]) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplishments do not speak to notability. Coverage of them in reliable independent secondary sources may contribute to notability, but alone do not show notability either. Your subjective real world definition of "notability" isn't relevant in this discussion. Wikipedia's somewhat objective definition of "notability" is what matters here. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notable alumini all have pages on wikipedia, and i just cited & added a link to some of the acedemics scores. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also this PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Toronto District School Board. Article fails WP:NORG/WP:NSCHOOL, and redirecting it is consistent with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES since this is a middle school without a clear claim to notability. That they have extracurricular achievements is not unique to this or any middle school; most middle schools can claim some kind of comparable competition win in one area or another at various points in their history, that's a routine aspect of a middle school and does not contribute to notability in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Toronto District School Board.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B[edit]

2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B (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)

Group 1, Pool B, of the Europe/Africa zone, for the playoffs, of the 2023 Billie Jean King Cup. Fails GNG. Nothing shows notability for Pool B of Group 1 of the playoffs. This artcle is all stats, BEFORE only showed stats and promo news.  // Timothy :: talk  11:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Norway, Serbia, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article exactly like this has been made for all the previous editions of the Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I, so I'm confused what's different here? For example 2022 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool A and 2022 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B, there's even articles for the results of even the lower Groups II and III. Kr1s71an (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous years' articles seem way too dependent on primary sources too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a Highly notable event worldwide. Even the group pools. Just because the creator failed to include enough sources doesn't mean they don't exist. I found multiple and added them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources do not bear this out.  // Timothy :: talk  21:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like they do to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Notable ties. All these non-English speaking countries cover tennis pretty good, among English sources. Even though such articles have been made for years, I wonder if Pool A and Pool B could be merged into 1 article? 2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ILIKEIT are not valid reasons to keep. None of the Keep votes has provided any sources shoing this meets notability guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  21:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps because they have been added to the article instead. They were so easy to find. The United States news doesn't look at it as all that important but other countries do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:NEXISTS. Also Fyunck(click) did add some English sources. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Keep votes are ignoring the subject - Group I – Pool B, there are articles about every level of the event, if there is going to be an article specifically about Group I – Pool B then there must be SIGCOV to show this subject - Group I – Pool B - meets notability.

Source eval:

Primary, not IS RS	1.  "2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I". fedcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	2. ^ "Serbia v Bulgaria". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	3. ^ "Sweden v Norway". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	4. ^ "Croatia v Denmark". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	5. ^ "Serbia v Norway". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	6. ^ "Sweden v Denmark". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	7. ^ "Croatia v Bulgaria". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	8. ^ "Serbia v Croatia". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	9. ^ "Sweden v Bulgaria". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	10. ^ "Denmark v Norway". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	11. ^ "Serbia v Denmark". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	12. ^ "Sweden v Croatia". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	13. ^ "Bulgaria v Norway". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	14. ^ "Serbia v Sweden". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	15. ^ "Croatia v Norway". billiejeankingcup.com.
Primary, not IS RS	16. ^ "Bulgaria v Denmark". billiejeankingcup.com.
Fails SIGCOV, this is what it states, "In Pool B, meanwhile, Sweden and Serbia both maintained their own perfect records with victory over Denmark and Norway respectively, suggesting there is much to play for over the coming days."	17. ^ "Billie Jean King Cup groups get underway". Retrieved 30 April 2023.
Routine sports news, no information about subject, fails SIGCOV. There is already an article about Group 1 as a whole, this is specifically about Pool B within Group 1	18. ^ "BJK Cup Group I round-up". Retrieved 30 April 2023.
Routine sports news, about a single game, fails SIGCOV	19. ^ "Bulgaria wins Billie Jean King Cup tie against Croatia". Retrieved 30 April 2023.

There is not sourcing for articles about every single zone, group and pool. This is simply stat spam.  // Timothy :: talk  21:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is sourcing, not to your liking though. The added sources are not routine... they are specifically written about the event. And if it's not perfect in all the sources, that doesn't mean you delete it... you keep adding to it. Could there me a reason to merge with the main article?..it's possible, but that's a different beast that can be discussed in another conversation. To just delete the material is the wrong way to go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pool A & B pages might be unnecessary and could be merged together. But that's more of a keep merge. I haven't received any feedback from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Billie Jean King Cup articles yet. @Fyunck(click) @Kr1s71an @Mkrny @খাঁটি বাঙালি, what do you think about merging them to 2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I? And in future avoid Pool and Zonal Group playoff articles. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with that. I did finally answer you on the project page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just no significant coverage to be found here. The two contributors who suggest keep seem not to understand our notability guidelines. In one of their comments they actually acknowledged the reason for deletion. Coverage exists for this entire event, but not for this particular segment of it.Tvx1 08:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We should merge the articles then per WP:ATD-M instead of deleting the content. Iffy★Chat -- 12:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The AFD has been running for three weeks. More than enough time for you to have moved the salvagable content to the right article. This particular should simply be deleted.Tvx1 19:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been running that long because there are two keeps and two deletes and a keep/merge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which still isn’t an excuse not to have move salvageable content or a write a new general article in the mean time.Tvx1 18:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure it is. Why would someone just start moving contents which would in effect double up the content on wikipedia? If there's a mandate to merge, sure, but not otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete way too specific to merit an article on its own. Wikipedia would be a mass (much more so than it is) if each topic was broken up into several indivisible parts. Its contents should be merged with the cup's main article. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people of Korean descent[edit]

List of people of Korean descent (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)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too broad, and entirely impossible to complete. This list probably doesn't even include 1% of all Koreans who have Wikipedia pages. (And a few people listed here don't even HAVE articles.) Mucube (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. Mucube (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Impossibly broad topic. Support deleting other similar topic lists. Ethnicity is rarely a defining trait. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too broad, not a defining trait. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too broad.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Korea. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Would have to be a more focused list, "Korean singers" or what have you. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree it is too broad. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too wide a subject. Needs more selective criteria.Rupples (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree it is too broad. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. ✗plicit 23:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahamat Issa Abakar[edit]

Mahamat Issa Abakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Chad international footballers as an WP:ATD; found no WP:SIGCOV in a before, just database entries (which don't count per WP:SPORTBASIC 5) and hits on namesakes. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Chad international footballers - no evidence of any SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jiafei[edit]

Jiafei (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 reliable sources for this apparent "trend". Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete I can't find sources that confirm this in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The Wikipedia article cites https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/jiafei. According to WP:KNOWYOURMEME, the source is user-generated and unreliable. The other sources in the article are user-generated sources from TikTok and YouTube.

  The Wikipedia article says:

  Jiafei is a TikTok trend that involves Chinese bot accounts reposting videos of attractive Asian women from Douyin while trying to sell products through absurd advertisements. The iconic Jiafei image is a photoshop of K-Pop stars Wang Feifei and Meng Jia's faces from the girl group Miss A. Jiafei has become a symbol of Stan Twitter and FlopTok discourse, and parody accounts have been created that use sound effects and satirical concepts like kidnapping through IP addresses.

  ...

  Many of the bot accounts that migrated to TikTok from Douyin had usernames containing the name "Jiafei," which originally referred to the two Chinese K-Pop stars Meng Jia and Weng FeiFei of the group Miss A. The use of "Jiafei" to refer to both women in one name dates back to 2019 and 2020, before being appropriated by the bots.

  Meng Jia's Chinese name is 孟佳. Wang Feifei's Chinese name is 王霏霏. Combining the two names, "Jiafei" should be referred to in Chinese as 佳霏. I conducted a Google search for "佳霏" and could not find significant coverage in Chinese-language sources about this trend, which does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability. The Wikipedia article does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability because all of the sources in the article are unreliable, and I could not find even passing mentions in reliable sources about the subject.

  I am willing to reconsider my position if another editor finds significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject.

  Cunard (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG, WP:NOTNEWS found nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Just routine pop culture mentions about a tick tok meme/spam advertising trend - not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - simply not enough enduring, in-depth coverage to surmount either WP:NOTNEWS or WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could be a notable topic should reliable sourcing be found, but as things stand it's not.Rupples (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Ali-Williams[edit]

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

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. There are a few sources out there, but they're more about the funeral home than her. Most sources are social media. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand she hasn't been covered much in regular press, but her image is so popular and so widely circulated on social media I think it is important to have a page with accurate information about her that people can turn to, because there is so much misinformation about who she is on TikTok. It's suprising that she doesn't have more press coverage given she is a huge celebrity on TikTok. 2607:F470:6:3001:8034:C1DA:3E6F:33E0 (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One source in the Houston Chronicle [1] and Narcity [2]. Seems to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mmm - two local sources, one written by "Brittany Cristiano, a Staff Writer for Narcity’s USA Desk focused on viral TikToks, based in Houston". Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Houston Chronicle source seems good (the page won't load completely for me). But essentially this is someone who has hit on a specific advertising method, and to me that makes her a one-trick pony, or a kind of a BLP1E even though it isn't a single "event" but a single "thing" that isn't (yet) generally significant. Presumably if she begins to get more publicity, especially outside of her immediate geographic area, she could meet GNG. Lamona (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the November 2022 Houston Chronicle source is a profile with some inteview and context; the brief September 2022 Narcity Houston source reports Tiktok stats, comments generally, and some specific comments on the TikTok account; the December 2022 Houston Chronicle coverage is a blurb in "Meet the 31 most fascinating and viral Houstonians of 2022." I have not found secondary coverage of the reality show on The Wynn Network. More sustained coverage in independent and reliable sources is needed to support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  those articles came out before she blew up on tiktok, she became viral in january 2023. More coverage is likely coming soon, the media is often a little delayed from when things or people actually go trending. 2607:F470:6:3001:2051:BF66:E732:AA7C (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless further sourcing found. Only The Houston Chronicle seems reliable. Checked Reliable Sources Noticeboard search for "Narcity" but nothing came up, so I'm putting it down as 'Questionable' hence article doesn't satisfy GNG. In any case, two sources don't make it; need more. Rupples (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Love & Life (Mary J. Blige album). Favonian (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Wrap (Mary J. Blige song)[edit]

It's a Wrap (Mary J. Blige song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NSONG. Heartfox (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Heartfox (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: Newspapers.com mentions

1. Los Angeles Times album review: "the plain-spoken "It's a Wrap" tells of the need to walk away from an abusive or unfaithful mate."
2. Associated Press album review: "We've come to expect more from Blige over the years, and she delivered with classic, gut-wrenching soul that came from the heart. Only a few songs approach that dynamic on "Love & Life," and it's on those songs such as "It's a Wrap" ...that Blige truly shines"
3. Daily Herald album review: "Blige ecstatically heats up "It's A Wrap"

ProQuest mentions

1. The Globe and Mail album review: "In It's a Wrap , she even allows herself to make sounds that aren't pretty, but that suit the confused fury of this song about an archetypal cheatin' man."
2. Vibe album review: "One of the album's grittiest tracks, "It's a Wrap," is about violation. Mary's voice sounds like molasses brought to the boiling point: sweet, thick, and bubbling with intensity. She's caught her man with some other chick's scent on him."
3. The Washington Post concert review "After Blige closed the pre-encore part of the show with a trio of buoyantly booty-shaking cuts from "Love & Life" -- "It's a Wrap"..."
4. USA Today album review: "She's still apt to put a knucklehead in check, as she does with Eve's help on the Dr. Dre-produced Not Today or on the pointed "It's a Wrap""
5. Lancaster New Era album review: "As in the past, Blige finds a way to put unfaithful men in their place, with the Dr. Dre-produced "Not Today" featuring Eve, and "It's A Wrap.""
6. St. Louis Post-Dispatch album review: "As the CD moves past the halfway mark, Blige takes up residence in the house that Quiet Storm built, registering with a string of signature-style ballads, including "Feel Like Making Love," "It's a Wrap"..."
7. Billboard album review: "those desiring the Blige of yore will find solace in the sterling "Press On," the haunting "Friends," the sassy "It's a Wrap"..."

EBSCOhost mentions

1. People album review: "Of course no Blige album would be complete without a killer he-done-me-wrong ballad for the ladies. Here it's "It's a Wrap," on which she once again proves she is the Aretha of her generation"

From searching Google, ProQuest, EBSCO, Newspapers.com, etc., there isn't one article that discusses this song alone, outside of a concert or album review. Just because a song charted at number 71 on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs doesn't mean its notable. As you can see from the availability of sources, there is not content outside of album reviews to meet WP:NSONG "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." Nor is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to satisfy WP:GNG. The album, Love & Life (Mary J. Blige album) does not have a "music and lyrics" section, so the little details available for this song would fit in perfectly there, and the chart performance is already covered at Mary J. Blige discography. This song is not notable independent of the album. Heartfox (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love & Life (Mary J. Blige album) per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love & Life (Mary J. Blige album). I appreciate that the nominator has clearly done a search for sources prior to their nomination and I agree with their rationale. I have done my own search, and it appears that this song has not received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. It appears that the coverage is limited to album reviews. This is the fifth single from an album that did not meet commercial expectations so I am not surprised by the limited coverage. That being said, a valid redirect target does exist and that would be preferable over outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to album. Only thing I found was a vibe listicle type article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Alhassan[edit]

Sunday Alhassan (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 the coverage to pass WP:GNG. There is some coverage in Football Made in Ghana but it's little more than a basic transfer announcement, although it does mention how many games he played for King Faisal and that he had a few injuries. Modern Ghana has a trivial mention. In any case, even if Football Made in Ghana is considered to be good, one decent source does not equal a GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The FMIG source mentioned by the nominator looks and reads exactly like a club press release, and is unlikely to be secondary coverage. In any case, it's not in-depth coverage by itself and the other sources available are woefully inadequate in terms of meeting WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cassatt Quartet#Current members. ✗plicit 12:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muneko Otani[edit]

Muneko Otani (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)

only one not enough reliable source provided. not notable person LusikSnusik (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article is a bit of a disaster in its current form, misquoting its only source. The source says that the Cassatt quartet, for which Otani is first violinist, has been named three times in the New Yorker's "Best of" sections, while the article leaves it very unclear about whom the New Yorker was writing, failing to mention the quartet at all. In the current situation, would a redirect to Cassatt Quartet be appropriate (where Otani is named and her role described) - without any prejudice against the recreation of a properly-sourced and accurate article? Elemimele (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Next time, please do a WP:BEFORE search. The absence of sources in an article does not necessarily mean that the subject is non-notable (WP:NEXIST). Curbon7 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A redirect should be the most dramatic outcome here and it is clear that the proper process of searching for sources prior to nominating for deletion has not been followed. I've made some improvements to the article, but have not spent much time on this, so don't know if WP:GNG is met. The nominator should have done that work before now. CT55555(talk) 22:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cassatt Quartet per WP:BANDMEMBER, as there is not enough coverage establishing individual notability per WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. Checked ProQuest in addition to Google (en/jp), and almost all of her coverage is brief mentions in connection to the Cassatt Quartet (including often positive reviews about her role specifically within the quartet), with occasional direct quotes about the music they are performing (e.g. about Godfrey's "Romanza"). Otherwise, Otani opened the 2014 Bowdoin Festival in a duet with harpist June Han (per Sun Journal); she is sometimes mentioned in passing in coverage about the Bowdoin Summer Music School, where she serves as faculty and works with student chamber groups; and her recitals as soloist/featured artist appear periodically in music listings in The New York Times. Even after the page becomes a redirect, it's fine to add more info in the Cassatt Quartet about her, as long as it properly cites reliable sources. Even if she is eventually replaced as the lead violinist, the information about Otani could be kept in a separate section for "Past members". Cielquiparle (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per above. All the significant coverage I found about the subject are focused on Cassatt Quartet. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cassatt Quartet#Current members, where the subject is mentioned. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thethaotocdo[edit]

Thethaotocdo (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)

Undersoursed not close to notable website LusikSnusik (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Motorsport, Websites, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten mile wide tornado[edit]

Ten mile wide tornado (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)

Contested PROD, disambiguates tornadoes whose widths are likely errors (see footnotes on List of United States tornadoes in 1946, and the respective talk page. 38.108.217.140 (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, Environment, United States of America, Colorado, Kansas, and Montana. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination, see Special:PermaLink/1152482019#Ten_mile_wide_tornado. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, an adequate ambig. page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — As the person who contested the PROD, it is a perfectly allowed disambiguation page. Slight comment as well, user proposing deletion did not discuss whatsoever on talk page discussion I made about why I contested the PROD. This is actually a duplicate reason to the PROD, which was “Disambig page for a probable error (see Talk:List of United States tornadoes in 1946”. So this AfD is an undiscussed second attempt at deletion with the same reason. Sad. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral On one hand, only the USWB covers anything relating to a ten mile wide tornado, failing WP:GNG (significant coverage by independent reliable sources). However, disambiguation pages aren't usually subjected to WP:GNG. Infinity (talk - contributions) 17:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insignificant coverage by independent reliable sources. Longevitydude (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Longevitydude, you do realize this will be a redirect (to Tornadoes of 1946) if the disabiguation page is deleted, then turned back into a disabiguation page once more tornadoes are listed in 1944/45, which also have “10 mile wide” tornadoes documented by the U.S. Government right? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the article be kept because of more ten-mile tornadoes? The USWB is not independent subject on ten-mile tornadoes (they are the original reporters of the width). Significant coverage is about the topic being mentioned directly and in detail. One line in a monthly storm report and a footnote about "10" being miles is not exactly significant coverage. Infinity (talk - contributions) 19:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are redirects. Do redirects need to have "significant coverage"? If yes, then I would like to know so I can have a fun deletion nomination spree through a check of the 800+ weather-related disambiguation pages and thousands of weather-related redirects. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No point in deleting if more items are to be added. Seems quite counterproductive. Noah^Talk 10:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete as additional sources seem to suggest anything pre-1950 is either unreliable or contains some kind of error and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. Noah^Talk 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hurricane Noah: Doesn’t matter if the tornado is from 1946, 1945, 1944, 944 or whenever. Because the 2013 el Reno tornado is recognized as the widest tornado at 2.6 miles, any ten mile tornado is a probable error. This page, therefore, disambiguates information that is likely false. Per WP:VNT, it is ok to mark the width as 10 miles in absence of a reliable source claiming otherwise. However, having a disambiguation page for it is pointless. If this page is redirected, I will RFD it and if a new disambig is created I will request it’s deletion again, because no matter how many tornadoes are added, the fact of the manner is the information is almost certainly false. 38.108.217.140 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Calling it an error without a source is WP:OR. Your claims of false information need to have sources to back them up. Both you and RandomInfinity17 are committing original research by calling these estimates inaccurate without a source to back it up. WP reflects what the sources say, not the opinions of editors. Just because the El Reno tornado may be recognized as the widest, doesn't mean you can claim these estimates as false information since that falls under WP:SYNTH. Don't claim something a source doesn't explicitly state. Unless you provide another source stating a different estimate or that the other estimate was in error, then your argument is moot. Noah^Talk 23:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR much? Wouldn't it be better the have the redirect to the exact place where the footnote is that states it is false? Do you have a source saying there wasn't a 10-mile-wide tornado? There are sources saying NOAA records start in 1950. NOAA doesn't acknowledge anything pre-1950 as official. So saying it is false would be WP:OR since there isn't an reliable source saying it isn't true. Is it false, IMO, yes. But if you want to go the technicality and policy route, this AfD doesn't have ground to stand on since no RS says it is false and we got a source (three refs+) from the U.S. Government saying it is true. Just let the disambiguation page remain since it is a REDIRECT...Not an article. I should also point out all three references are different publications in Monthly Weather Review & were written by three different people. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source saying there wasn't a 10-mile-wide tornado? That is pretty egregiously shifting the burden. A reliable source is needed to make the claim that there was such a tornado instead in terms of WP:V and WP:RS policy. The old source from 1946 currently used is pretty questionable for multiple reasons, but also in part due to reports being considered reliable after 1950. Current-day sources reiterate that and what the widest recognized tornado was. KoA (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and does not have significant coverage in sources. Even as a redirect, it's pointing to a page that doesn't support the claim, which as the IP mentions above appears to be made up and is WP:OR. None of the current entries in the disambig point to a 10-mile wide tornado. The widest one listed at [[3]] (that's tagged at least with the accuracy warning) is listed at about 8 miles in one source, but is likely dated or inaccurate as more recent sources listed at Tornado_records#Largest_path_width say the widest as of 2013 was 2.6 miles. It's possible the list has errors or is possibly confusing path width vs. length. That source has a disclaimer that it's just reports received, not that they are accurate and that a revised list, making it a sort of WP:PRIMARY report possibly too. Looks like there are a lot of potential issues with the list article's accuracy that cloud this related AfD, but the short of this is that this does not look like a valid redirect. Delete this as a sort of WP:NEOLOGISM and work on sorting out/verifying the list article later. KoA (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting all the 10-mile-wide tornadoes were removed in this edit by Supportstorm. On that note, saying Monthly Weather Review is a primary source has more ramifications that should be addressed at WP:RSN. Anyway, my vote is switching to delete on that specific note, but not a perm delete. Only until any future 10-mile-wide tornadoes are added in future articles. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With that last comment there's potential we may need to WP:SALT the term. As for MWR and not taking my comment out of context, those specific pre-1950 reports likely appear to be collections of unvetted reports, but at least not generally considered accurate or standardized until 1950. KoA (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“likely appear to be collections of unvetted reports” sounds a lot like WP:OR. I suggest we both stop talking about this since we both agree to delete this now. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elijahandskip, the projecting and WP:BLUDGEONING by you is getting disruptive. The burden is on you to substantiate that such tornadoes existed in terms of following WP:OR policy. OR is not, "people cannot disagree with poor sourcing" as has been applied by you at this AfD. That is just WP:WIKILAWYERING and contradicting our other sourcing policies. The source is pretty clear that they are only preliminary reports with no indication of how vetted they are, and later sources make a point of excluding that time period due to methodology issues. KoA (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not letting the cart go before the horse. Unless there is an explicit need to salt the name, then it shouldn't be done. A comment is not sufficient to justify that. Salting is only done in the case of repeated recreation despite consensus for something not to exist. Noah^Talk 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Threats to recreate a likely bogus concept are very much a case for WP:SALT. Given the added behavior issues here, it does appear to be a case where an additional check would be needed before letting just anyone recreate it. KoA (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't preemptively protect pages based on the threat or likelihood of recreation or vandalism. This is the same reason why Today's FA is not protected. It obviously will be vandalized, yet the community has chosen to not protect until such vandalism occurs. There was a big discussion a few years ago about not preemptively protecting pages. A case of one person being involved usually results in a block rather than protection being issued anyways. The issue of protection arises when it is multiple people. If this is deleted, the decision should be respected. If someone here recreates it to spite the decision, then they should be blocked from editing at the title. Noah^Talk 22:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't preemptively protect pages based on the threat or likelihood of recreation or vandalism. Ironically, that is exactly the primary reason page creation protection is used when such a continued likelihood is apparent. Admin actions are preventative or preemptive, not WP:PUNITIVE. If it weren't likely, that protection would not be valid, but we usually don't get people broadcasting they plan to do it and won't drop the WP:STICK. Regardless of administrative action, the threat was made to recreate the page in terms of WP:POINT, so part of our responsibility at AfD is figuring out how to address that in addition to the deletion question. KoA (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the subjects in the dab actually have articles. I would say redirec to List of United States tornadoes in 1946, which is where all 3 of the current items redirect to, but there is no mention of "ten mile wide" on the list article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv Chadha[edit]

Sanjiv Chadha (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 BLP of a businessman is poorly sourced. Routine coverage of his appointment as the CEO of a bank. Does not meet WP:GNG Thesixserra (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Thesixserra (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Domonkos II, Archbishop of Esztergom[edit]

Domonkos II, Archbishop of Esztergom (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-existing person, only a 14th-century forgery mentions his name. Modern academic works (archontologies) do not list his name among the archbishops. His name is not included in the provided source Beke, Margit (2003). I created the article 10 years ago based on Hungarian wiki article. There, another delete request is ongoing. Norden1990 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Hungary. Norden1990 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- We are dealing with a very remote period. Are we absolutely sure that the 14th-century source is a forgery? Does the Hungarian WP article still exist? Sometimes, it is worth having an article on a person whose existence is dubious, as a place to express that doubt. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article does exist as of 19:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the source is a forgery. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under G7: article author is requesting deletion and there is no substantial content added by other editors. I've looked over the hu.wiki discussion (via Google Translate) and it appears that competent people have done a thorough search for sources and found nothing. I'm prepared to take the nom's word for it that this person is non-existent and non-notable. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if the topic does not pass WP:V then the correct outcome should always be deletion. Please ping me if appropriate verification exists in either the Hungarian Wikipedia discussion or this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a non-existent person Pallor (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . Nomination withdrawn due to the indentification of 2 RS reviews. No delete votes were presented. (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 11:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Next Door[edit]

Christmas Next Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While this film attracted a large viewing audience, I am not finding any reliable source reviews for it. Everything is either routine coverage or blog reviews. Should be deleted as non-notable, or a redirect to List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies.

Was previously PROD'd. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What is currently on the page seems enough. There is at least also this in Romper.— MY, OH, MY! 12:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a one-click search also gives this, and this...— MY, OH, MY! 14:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Scene may be considered reliable, but the other one is clearly a blog, which fails WP:RS as it is WP:USERGENERATED. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But Romper, see 1st line of my comment, is not a blog, Is it? — MY, OH, MY! 22:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC) (actually it was already on the page, I had missed it. But large audience + at least 2 sources seem to be enough)[reply]

I concur that Romper is a RS. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It was already kept once [4]. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removing a PROD with the rationale that it "may be notable" is not a valid keep reason. Sources proving notability must be provided, not an opinion that it is notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, that's not what WP:NEXIST says. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that sources MAY exist, but nothing has be provided. We don't keep based on MAYBE. Sources don't need to be added, but they need to exist. Nothing has been added except blog reviews, and just saying "keep" based on those blog reviews will not suffice. Sources must be RELIABLE, meaning oversight. There is zero oversight on a personal blog. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources in article do seem sufficient, and those presented above seal the deal. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources in the article are blogs. Out of the 2 listed by Kirill, only the Movie Scene can be considered reliable.The other one...yep, another blog. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn, I am convinced with there being at least 2 RS reviews that this film passes WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 11:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sofía Rodríguez[edit]

Sofía Rodríguez (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)

BLP, fails GNG, BIO. BEFORE showed database, promo, and primary, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval:

• Promotional primary source :: 1.  Lima, Agustina (2022-04-17). "Sofía Rodríguez returns to television" . Sofia Rodriguez (in Spanish) . Retrieved 2023-04-16 .
• Promotional :: 2. ^ "Sofía Rodríguez returns to television and says: "I like what is different, to be a chameleon"". EL PAIS. 2022-02-10. Retrieved 2023-04-16.
• Promotional :: 3. ^ "Sofía Rodríguez left Algo with you" . THE COUNTRY . 2017-06-15 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 .
• Promotional :: 4. ^ "Full Court Player" . THE COUNTRY . 2017-04-29 . Retrieved 2023-04-16 .
• Promotional :: 5. ^ "PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions". www.pressreader.com. Retrieved 2023-04-16.
• Promotional :: 6. ^ "Sofía Rodríguez in her great moment: "I do not believe in fleeting success"". Caras (in Spanish). 2018-10-11. Retrieved 2023-04-16.
• Promotional :: 7. ^ "Sofía Rodríguez will be the investigative jury of La Máscara Uruguay!" . Teledoce.com (in Spanish) . Retrieved 2023-04-16 .

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  07:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the creator is active and already disputed the deletion on the talk page, I believe it is likely they would dispute a soft delete, so better to relist and establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There's more sources on the spanish wiki version of this.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This debate drug out so long that TOOSOON is now an outdated argument. So I'm calling this no consensus and if anyone wants a fresh discussion, have at it, but I don't think it will result in deletion. Courcelles (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council election[edit]

2023 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council 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)

Another contested redirect/draft, with zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but draftifying is no longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page, like the various other election pages for 2023 local elections in the UK and previous years, provides information on an election that is quite important. The election is three weeks away, so I would say it isn't too soon and there is plenty of precedent for creating these types of articles in advance of elections in the UK as well as the US and other countries. Additionally, the article does cite independent, reliable sources such as Manchester Evening News. TheSubmarine (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Normally I'd say WP:TOOSOON on something like this, but this election is a couple of weeks away, the article is sourced to major local press outlets and it will be populated with results soon. There is plenty of precedent for these local council election articles - see eg. 2022 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council election. Flip Format (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the two responses above, there is a precedent for such articles and it is cited using reliable sources. Most local elections are rarely in-depth. DankJae 22:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please don't be over-zealous in pushing for the deletion of these election pages ahead of the event. Once the candidates are announced, you start getting local media coverage which tells the story of who the contenders / group leaders / policies / coalitions might be, plus it's precisely at this point in the run-up to an election that people pay more attention than normal to local politics. If the pages are here and ready for potential editors to start documenting the story, that increases the likelihood that the pages will have greater value in future beyond simply recording the bald mathematical outcome. Stortford (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "keep", but reopened for further consideration following a request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm sorry, but WP:OSE, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:USEFUL are not policy based arguments. I am not saying that this article will not be notable at some point, but currently it is not, and should have remained in draftspace until there was enough in-depth sourcing to show that it passes WP:SIGCOV.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - you trivialise the arguments in favour of keeping by saying that they are WP:OSE, WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL. Every local election in the UK has had a page produced for it for some years now. That is not simply "other stuff exists", but a comprehensive and well-established consensus that such events are of themselves notable. It you're wanting to have the much wider debate about whether every election should have its own page, that needs to be done in a much wider forum than here, for the significant implications on large numbers of pages that could arise. I agree the sourcing on these election pages could be improved sometimes, but that should be a note to improve rather than a deletion in the first instance. I also agree there's a point at which it's too soon to create such an article, but I don't think too soon is a reasonable argument after the candidates are announced, and certainly not just three days from the election as we are now. I'm glad you acknowledge it may well be notable at some point; I therefore struggle to understand why you think it's a worthwhile use of your or anyone else's time to be continuing to trigger these deletion debates on multiple councils' election pages. I have yet to see any comment supporting deletion from anyone else on all the equivalent pages you're trying to get deleted. Stortford (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's a worthwhile use of my time, I think that when it was moved to draft, it should have remained there until there was enough sourcing to pass notability criteria. The initial !votes on this and the other AfDs, if they had been based on policy, should have been Draftify, at best. But that is the time-waste, the insistence that poorly cited articles, not yet ready, should remain in mainspace regardless of their lack of sourcing. And no, your argument is the epitome of WP:OSE, just because there are tons of poor articles does not make creating more poor articles okay. There is no policy that says that these elections are automatically notable, therefore it would be incumbent on those who feel they are to begin an RfC to create an SNG which says they are. However, I doubt that it would pass. I would also suggest you change your duplicate keep !vote to a comment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have changed my previous follow-up response from keep to comment, if that is the etiquette; I haven't had much engagement with the deletion process before. The wording of your initial proposal explicitly says that draftifying is no longer an option, which is perhaps why no-one's suggested it in response. Stortford (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for doing that, yes, in AfD discussions, you may comment as often as you like, but you may only !vote once. And regarding my initial Draftify comment, that means that a reviewer no longer has the option to draftify, but the result of a discussion can be to draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly not WP:TOOSOON. Took a few seconds to find some in-depth coverage[5][6][7] Number 57 12:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not WP:TOOSOON, it's notable and it's in 3 days time. When there's only one person trying to get 6 different pages for the same reason and there's no other delete votes, what are you trying to gain? I don't get it. There's news coverage, and a list of candidates is important information anyway. On your attempt to remove Luton, you argued that the election authority isn't a proper source for this information - your lack of understanding of UK elections is showing here, as the election authority - in this case, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council - are the only place that publish a legally-binding list of candidates. How else do you find out the full list of candidates? Every UK election page ever has done the same, it's convention. This is just getting tedious. Dan pixelflow (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree completely. One should know a little, at least, about the subject or research it to find out why so many of the same type of article are all having the same made up "issue".

  Thanks, Wikieditor019 (If I do not respond, please visit my talk page) 21:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The election has occurred and in depth coverage is being added as results solidify. As with UK local elections, each election is not covered nationally. However, on Wikipedia, every local UK election has had a article if someone has made it.
• Comment It appears you nominate UK local elections for deletion without knowledge of the fact they are not covered nationally, for each individual election. This means that there will be no BBC/ITV/Sky News article dedicated to a single election. Possibly in cities but not rural areas.

Thanks, Wikieditor019 (If I do not respond, please visit my talk page) 21:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ . Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Teacher Ate My Homework[edit]

My Teacher Ate My Homework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews from Reliable Sources found. Tagged for notability.

PROD removed with the addition of 2 'reviews', but one is definitely a blog (wordpress site), and the other is of questionable reliability as it appears to be a blog style review as well. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable cast (Shelley Duvall, particularly). At least one review. The film is the second and so far last attempt at adapting books from a notable book series. Seems reasonably notable in the field of children's horror cinema.— MY, OH, MY! 12:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a notable cast is irrelevant as notabilty is not inherited. WP:NOTINHERITED. Films need more than 1 review from RELIABLE SOURCES to pass WP:NFILM guidelines. Blogs are not reliable sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a notable cast is not irrelevant. Quite the opposite, it is part of the film notability to have a notable cast, specially when members of the said cast are famous for their work in one given genre. It may not be enough, that's all, that is what the essay you are referring to explains. And, again, Morbidly Beautiful is not a blog. — MY, OH, MY! 14:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The perhaps I shall direct you to WP:NRV, which is a guideline. "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". None of which has been demonstrated yet. I do concur that "Morbidly Beautiful" appears to pass WP:RS however. But that alone is not enough. One more RS review and I will change my view. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is indeed an important guideline, and although I am not exactly certain as to why you would direct me to this page now, thank you all the same for this general reminder. Back to the point, if I may: there is a contemporary review in The Sun_Journal_(Lewiston,_Maine), 5 Oct. 1997, p. 56 defining the film as a "morality tale with an evil-doll-coming-to-life premise"; the film is also the object of a recommendation-rating notice by the Québec Board of education (saying (in French) the film will be enjoyed by all children who will be scared just what is needed but with a warning not to show it too small children who might be too scared by the character of the Reaper); the film is also mentioned in various books about teachers in fiction, among others; finally, and I will leave it at that, the main actor, Gregory Smith received the 1997 Young Artist Award for Best Leading role Actor for his performance in the film (I could not verify if the UNICEF Award he received the same year was for the same role). — MY, OH, MY! 22:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with the Sun Journal article, and combined with the Morbidly Beautiful article I do feel this passes WP:NFILM. Thank you for taking the time to find these sources that I was unable to. I withdraw my nomination...knowing that it still cannot be closed as another user has suggested a REDIRECT. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — MY, OH, MY! 22:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Shadow Zone (novels), the book series that the movie was based on, in which the original book and this movie adaptation are both already mentioned (though, honestly, that article is also in terrible, unsourced shape, and probably needs to have its notability looked at, as well). Of the two added sources, one is a wordpress blog and is definitely not a reliable source. Even if the other one is a RS, which I am unsure of, a single source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Searches for any additional sources are not turning up any significant coverage on either this film or the book it is based on that shares its name. Rorshacma (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Striking my above recommendation, as the nominator indicated they would like to Withdraw. Rorshacma (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Al-Hanaai[edit]

Khaled Al-Hanaai (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 was unable to locate any coverage that would satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC when searching in Arabic (خالد الهنائي). None of the current sources are good enough either and the subject has played only one minute of professional football 3 years ago and done next to nothing since. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Al-Shahania SC: Not notable enough for a standalone article 109.169.34.46 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He left Al-Shahania in 2020 so is no longer mentioned in that article. A redirect would be confusing for the reader. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, then delete. 109.169.34.47 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Disagree with redirect as he has played for multiple clubs. GiantSnowman 22:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The mentioned page requires more related-source to indicates its notability, otherwise I might be better to be deleted. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ . WP:G5 by User:Spicy. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Cooper (singer)[edit]

Cal Cooper (singer) (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)

Having searched the net for references, I am convinced that this man fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mert Göksu[edit]

Mert Göksu (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)

BLP lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither source independent, written by an SPA, and probably PROMO. small jars tc 13:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete typical PROMO. Aintabli (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the editor who saw this page through new page review and put the notability tag on. I'd like to comment that the author kept adding promotional content and unnecessary external links, to the point where I almost triggered 3RR removing them. Due to this, this seems like a strong COI to me. Bensci54 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough or reliable sources exist.Pershkoviski (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Slovene communities in South America. Redirect is the most reasonable solution here, as the target article has actually substantially more content than this one. Tone 07:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slovene Uruguayans[edit]

Slovene Uruguayans (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 Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE; provides a population statistic without any indication of importance. Small group and the existence of a cultural center is not a basis for an article. Wikipedia is not for every intersection of nationalities that exists on the planet. Geschichte (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Slovenia, and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Slovene Uruguayans are not an indiscriminate collection of information but an important and notable cultural community in Uruguay. They manage the oldest Slovene cultural society in South America ([8]) and are frequently mentioned in various media ([9], [10], [11]) as well as scholarly publications ([12], [13]). --TadejM ^{my talk} 12:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Slovene diaspora as an AtD. Tiny community ~1,500 - 2,000 individuals.[14]. Brief article which is an unneeded CFORK for a small community. Content is unlikely to be found in a stand alone article, but will improve the target article. If someone add multiple refs to the article from IS RS with SIGCOV about Primera Sociedad Eslovena Transmurana de Montevideo, let me know  // Timothy :: talk  07:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with this suggestion. While Slovene Uruguayans may be a small community, they are a notable cultural community in Uruguay on their own with their unique history and contributions. There are other articles about Slovene diaspora in South America (e.g. Slovene Argentines, Slovene Venezuelans etc.) and they can't all be merged to Slovene diaspora. The scope is too broad. It would be appropriate though to have a standalone article about Slovene communities in South America, which would allow for a comprehensive outline of these communities, with details found at their respective articles. --TadejM ^{my talk} 07:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the creation of Slovene communities in South America, I think is a good compromise for this. These articles have very little sourced content, but I think this article would be a good place to develop the article as possible. If there is enough content developed to merit a split, Slovene communities in South America would act as a good WP:SUMMARY and itself would be a sub of Slovene diaspora. @Geschichte:, what do you think?  // Timothy :: talk  08:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I will create this article as soon as I find some spare time. --TadejM ^{my talk} 18:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft for this article is available at User:TadejM/Sandbox2. I will move it to the main article space as soon as sources are added. --TadejM ^{my talk} 16:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created the article at Slovene communities in South America, so I suggest that this content (including the image and the infobox) is merged there. --TadejM ^{my talk} 19:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above is the correct course with a redirect to the correct section. This new article has clear potential.  // Timothy :: talk  22:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to newly-created Slovene communities in South America per WP:ATD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to newly-created Slovene communities in South America. Too minor to warrant a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Kramer (singer)[edit]

David Kramer (singer) (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 lacks notable sources Elttaruuu (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Elttaruuu (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep well-known singer and playwright, [15] meets WP:GNG. He is notable enough for Britannica article.[16] “One of South Africa’s most famous voices” [17]. Also WP:NOTCLEANUP. WP:BEFORE should be done before nomination, and it is extremely unlikely to have happened here. Park3r (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The bias is strong with this one. The references are notable and a lot of digging finds coverage in non South African sources Gbawden (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, definitely. A major figure in South African music, whose shows have toured internationally, and a cultural icon in South Africa. There are sources in the article and plenty more online. At best this should be a request to improve the article references, not to an AfD. Zaian (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SIGCOV found online. Nom did not do any research on the web, i.e. failing to to a WP:BEFORE. Timothytyy (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Fi on the Rock[edit]

Sci-Fi on the Rock (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 finding significant, independent coverage. Article is heavily promotional and crufty. Courcelles (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I put the more citations needed tag for this involvement. CastJared (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no demonstration of notability, fails GNG. Does appear to be crufty. Out of the 7 sources, 2 are primary sources and the remaining 5 are from IMDb, which is unreliable per WP:RSP. — Czello 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I'm gonna remove IMDb citations because they're not realiable. CastJared (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: All removed, keeping 2 primary sources. CastJared (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need secondary sources for notability, not primary Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we need secondary citations. CastJared (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify - I was considering AfDing it mere minutes before you nominated it. The article has been a 15 year project by the organisation to promote their festival. The CBC.ca articles may very well be paid promotions, but with no overwhelming evidence I consider them to count as significant independent coverage. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I think it is now stubbed. CastJared (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Events, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From the article history, its clear this has long term G11 issues and has been properly stubed, but I have no doubt the promo will creep or flood back in if kept. Subject does not has IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed local news promos, nothing that meets SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk  03:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete or draftity. It exists and has been noticed by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: [18]. That does not seem enough to meet WP:NEVENT. But technically, one more media mention like this might help this meet GNG - until we run into WP:NOTNEWS. There's mention by SaltWire Network, I guess, but I think it's too little. Do we have any evidence this event was noticed outside local media, which is what both of those mentions are? I see that it was a very long piece of WP:OR on local sci-fi history, unreferenced, now stubified. I am afraid the best recommendation I have for the authors is to get this history published somewhere - there are sci-fi zins, magazines, and even academic journals that may be interested in this. After we have an in-depth article about this in some reliable, outside source, then this could be restored. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was *this* close to pushing the delete button, but it seems as if some editors feel that they are one good source away from notability, so I'm giving them bit more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the consistent coverage over several years by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Saltwire (the website of the St. John's Evening Telegram and several other newspapers under the same ownership in Atlantic Canada) is enough to establish notability. Both are reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I concur with Eastmain - sustained coverage in WP:RS sufficient to establish notability. Article has been cleaned up. ResonantDis_tortion 15:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is now well-sourced, and could probably be expanded to some extent. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 03:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as recent participants in this AFD discussion seem to view the recent additions as addressing the concerns of those advocating deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• All the added sources are pretty routine, and they only come from two publications. I still do not believe GNG is met with only two publications offering any coverage. As GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Courcelles (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Modussiccandi (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Ortiz (footballer)[edit]

Felipe Ortiz (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the sources in the article, [19] is about him winning a local municipality award. It has a few lines of prose but is largely qoutes from him. [20] is a play-by-play of a U-23 match and [21] is a few lines and images from him training with the Chilean U-23 team. The only thing I found during a search was this Q&A from a fan blog. Alvaldi (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Very notable player in Chile. In addition to sources in article, here are three: [22],[23], [24]. There are lots more.  // Timothy :: talk  14:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing anything significant there. [25] briefly mentions that he is being called up for a friendly, [26] has minor mentions of him and [27] mentions him once in a list of other players in a lineup. None of these are significant coverage. And even if they were, they are all are from diariolaprensa.cl so they would only count as one source towards GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 19:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG; a couple of match reports, match previews and youth national team call-ups in La Prensa do not represent WP:SIGCOV, nor do the brief mentions and blogposts referenced by the nominator. Jogurney (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Jogurney and Alvaldi's criticisms of the sources seems to be absolutely correct. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In agreement with Alvaldi, Jogurney, and Spiderone. I could not find anything beyond routine call-ups and passing mentions in recaps either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a professional footballer in the first division of Chile and has represented his country, a foremost Southamerican footballing nation at the Under 23 level. He is near the start of his career, and the notability and mentions will very likely continue to accumulate. Found some additional coverage. For example, Ortiz has recently received an accolade from his native city, a provincial capital.Link . And a couple more sources here, and here, where he was giving a press conference. Alan Islas (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The first link is an announcement containing essentially one or two independent sentences, with the rest being quotes from him. The second is a routine call-up that is almost entirely quotes. The third is repeating info straight from a press conference with no independent commentary. None of these count towards GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to be relatively notable to be kept, but it needs more improvements and sources. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, do those sources with which we can improve the article from actually exist? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An source in a major mainstream publication, that includes some quotes, doesn't invalidate the source from being GNG. None of the references above have extensive coverage - but most have significant, albeit brief, coverage. This is a 21-year old with 56 caps for a top team in a major league - not a 35-year old with 2 starts in the French third-division. He recently started in the South American equivalent of the Champions League. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources mentioned so far, and from searching online, are GNG adjacent. A longer search will likely bring more. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MoneySign Suede[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC with no charting songs or albums. Sources cover only his murder as slain rappers automatically make headlines no matter how obscure they are. PROD removed by IP with no other edit history. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tagged it for notability, I wasn't sure. I suppose it isn't notable as all sources are about his death, nothing found about his music. I can't find any we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unable to locate any reliable sources to support notability as a musician. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One event. Not a notable career. If he had a notable song and/or album, then maybe it wouldn't fall under one event. Longevitydude (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really that notable. No appearances on the Billboard Hot 100. Dark cold night (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. 2001:4455:61D:DB00:4184:9335:4EB4:685F (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) — 2001:4455:61D:DB00:4184:9335:4EB4:685F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Not notable. Without a chart hit on any Billboard charts. With due respect, the manner of his death does not make him notable. GeorgeJack (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . Not only a problem of notability, but most of this material is a BLP violation. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely Peaches[edit]

Lovely Peaches (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 and poorly sourced, see WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPREMOVE. This may be suitable for speedy delete. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree that this is a BLP bomb. Reviewed the sources on Google News and they are almost all gossip sources. Fails GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only reliable source cited is Cinemaholic and I quite agree that this particular citation falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP. It also would not come close to significant coverage of the article subject - it's only a few sentences and does not cover them in any depth making it WP:ROUTINE coverage rather than of any significance. Other sources include self produced primary sources such as links to Youtube, Spotify and Reddit, none of which are appropriate for using in a BLP other than to source non-controversial facts, and they certainly do not lend to an argument of notability. The other primary source within the article is Distractify, a source which at best is only somewhat reliable. It focuses on celebrity gossip (See todays headline: How Rich is King Charles) and not what I can consider a reliable source in which coverage can connote a level of notability.

One reliable source (Insider) does cover an allegation of animal cruelty and child abuse, however per WP:CRIME it is not even appropriate to truly discuss these in a BLP unless there is evidence a court has convicted them of the crime. The articles themselves pertain little to the article subject and instead focus on gossip, rumours, and allegations rather than detailed coverage of the subject's background, notability, works, or life. On the whole this is just some Youtuber who's antics attracted a little media attention - they are not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article.

I think the introduction of the background within the article sums it up entirely: Little is known about Johnson's early life or family background, as she has not disclosed much information about her personal life. TLDR: There simply is not enough to write about this person, likely because she is not notable. No other appropriate sources connoting notability able to be located. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to the poor quality of the sourcing, and also has clear WP:BLP issues, which per WP:DEL-REASON is also grounds for deletion. --Tristario (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with User:MaxnaCarta that clickbait articles are not significant coverage. I also note that the subject does not meet any of the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: non-notable Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Please can an admin properly close this article ASAP if possible as a flagrant BLP violation for this non-notable person. I have removed all the unsourced information, criminal allegations without conviction; and information citing unreliable sources, as it should not have stayed up as long as it did, but what is remaining probably shouldn't stand either. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Slough. ✗plicit 11:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Chauhan[edit]

Ravinder Chauhan (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)

BLP, fails BIO and GNG. Sources in article is primary by the subject, BEFORE showed mentions, but nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  02:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of mayors of Slough. Fails WP:NPOL, non-notable as politician. ("Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the GNG.") Mooonswimmer 03:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He is the first Indian origin mayor. Moreover he is of indian untouchable dalit origin. Dev Mahey (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a criteria. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 03:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of mayors of Slough: per above. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of mayors of Slough. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 07:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of mayors of Slough. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ke Hobe Biggest Fan[edit]

Ke Hobe Biggest Fan (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 satisfy notability requirements. Tagged for notability since 2016 DonaldD23 talk to me 23:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No longer meets WP:GNG. I could not find any WP:SIGCOV for the talk show. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 15:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But did meet them in the past? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 10:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Manchester Phoenix season[edit]

2015–16 Manchester Phoenix season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested WP:PROD, however as the team played in a lower-level English ice hockey league (which itself does not have season articles, nor should it for that level), I would argue this fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. I'm also nominating the other team-season articles, as they all fail the same criteria. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 Manchester Phoenix season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008–09 Manchester Phoenix season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012–13 Manchester Phoenix season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014–15 Manchester Phoenix season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1999–2000 EPIHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014–15 EPIHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kaiser matias:, please be aware that the English Premier Ice Hockey League has two season articles at 1999–2000 EPIHL season and 2014–15 EPIHL season; and a mostly disused Template:English Premier Ice Hockey League. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added those two articles to this AfD as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: Each article fails to meet WP:NSEASONS. Flibirigit (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all no evidence any of them pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Research and Educational Foundation[edit]

Islamic Research and Educational 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)

Lacks notability NM 00:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poorly written and sourced, and nothing coming up online. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in gnews, gbooks or gscholar. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify.‎. Courcelles (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badminton at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games – Qualification[edit]

Badminton at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games – Qualification (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:SIGCOV. Contested drafting, so no other choice but to bring it here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Caribbean, and El Salvador. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton, Barbados, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basketball at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games – Qualification. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftifying would be the best decision here as per what I feel, because this tournament is upcoming and most probably will get the much needed coverage in future, being an important tournament in Badminton Pan Am. zoglophie 17:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just a results listing not covered in independent sources. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not possible to select 2 sports out of a bunch of sports and iscuss only these 2, whilst the others are kept. Florentyna (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also you have not demonstrated how this topic meets a notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (vote below) Agree that it is an invalid comment. Florentyna Timothytyy (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftifying would be a good choice. However I doubt that this will ever meet GNG, so I won't oppose deletion. Timothytyy (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - I am also sceptical about whether this article will ever meet GNG but I see no harm in it staying in draft so people can work on it and potentially reintroduce the article if the event ever does gain the required coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is the drafting of this article has been met with resistance. Would a drafting decision here stand? If so, I would also support drafting. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do share this concern with you. If someone disruptively moves it back without addressing the concerns of this AfD, it can always be pushed back to draft space, reinforcing the AfD consensus, with a view to WP:SALT if people can't resist the temptation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games – Qualification[edit]

Basketball at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games – Qualification (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:SIGCOV. Contested drafting and redirect, so no other choice but to bring it here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, Caribbean, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, and Puerto Rico. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as with all of the other ones deleted recently, seems to lack significant coverage in independent WP:RS. For what it's worth, I think Archery at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games – Qualification has similar issues too, despite having more citations, the entire thing is an ianseo.net stats mirror. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badminton at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games – Qualification. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just a results listing not covered in independent sources. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not possible to select 2 sports out of a bunch of sports and iscuss only these 2, whilst the others are kept. Florentyna (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also you have not demonstrated how this topic meets a notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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