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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Jeeva[edit]

Anand Jeeva (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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biographies-related deletion discussions. NYC Guru (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced cinematographer. Only 3 films.

Source analysis:

1. Bad database
2. Bad database
3. Source about his dad and his uncle, not him
4. Unreliable DareshMohan (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other option is to redirect to dad Jeeva (artist).

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete page has only 3 sources and they collectively don't help with notability criteria. I don't think redirecting to Jeeva (artist) helps either.CourtseyDriver (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to San Jose State University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San José State Alma Mater[edit]

San José State Alma Mater (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 fails WP:MUSIC. A search on both general Google results and Google Books finds no significant secondary source material about this song. There is no inherent notability just because this is the school song for a notable university. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is good to Merge to San Jose State University. I agree with Arbor to SJ that this song by itself is not notable. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this does get kept then it needs to be moved to Hail! Spartans, Hail! since that's the actual name of the song. However, it certainly should not be kept with just the sources on page since those are clearly all primary and do not convey notability. No time to check for sources myself so I don't have an actual vote here, but if the nominator's search turning up nothing holds true for other editors then a merge/redirect like TheLonelyPather suggested would be the most appropriate action. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. The song is not notable on its own two legs and is not a notable college alma mater. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:44, 3 August 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 Nate Paul. ✗plicit 01:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Class Capital Group[edit]

World Class Capital Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The company by itself does not meet the criteria for WP:ORG or WP:ORGIND. Yes, there's a good number of sourcing. However, the coverage is basically an aggrandizing Forbes profile about the founder and trade publication reporting about routine real estate transactions. Longhornsg (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nate Paul as per ATD and suggestions below. Delete I agree, the references fail GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. As pointed out above, the vast majority either regurgitate company announcements or other PR or are not "Independent Content" relying on information provided by an executive/founder. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: we have well-sourced article about Nate Paul, World Class's colorful founder and an alleged felon. He's very notable and is at the center of the impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Maybe we just don't need this article, too.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some coverage the paid editors left out: ^[1][2]

Unfortunately all the details are in the Austin Business Journal article which is behind a paywall. If we keep this article, we'll need sources to update the article for the bankruptcies.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still more: ^[3][4][5][6]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:35, 26 July 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,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Nate Paul. Although I suspect WP:NCORP might be satisfied by profiles of Paul (the Forbes article isn't so aggrandizing if you read down to the section starting "when you are") the focus is on him. The article does a good job of laying out his history of oh-so-many real estate developments but that isn't getting the meaty news coverage, just the owner. Oblivy (talk) 03:50, 4 August 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 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Oldfield[edit]

Barbara Oldfield (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:SPORTCRIT. Only a primary source supplied. 2 gnews hits, one being the unreliable WP:DAILYMAIL. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Luckily the Daily Mail has been removed from this article, as it rightly should be from every article where it does not play a significant role. Even then, how is Oldfield a notable athlete by our standards? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 5 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odek[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability except as the birth place of a terrorist. Delete or redirect to Joseph Kony. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment isn't this a settlement though? I generally argue to keep most villages, but I have to agree that this one doesn't seem notable. Nothing in Google Books,and all hits on scholar are for authors. Kony of course is himself notable but that doesn't transfer just because he was born there. Maybe if he had operated from there at some point in time. If the settlement rule does not apply here, this vote can be counted as delete. Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite literally the only content in the article, and, indeed, the only content I can find elsewhere, is in connection to Kony. No population figures, no rough history, nothing. Unhelpful to the reader: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Notability is not inhereted. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 10:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've done some poking around, and from what I can tell Odek is at 2°40′48″N 32°43′41″E / 2.680°N 32.728°E / 2.680; 32.728 (don't ask me why Google Maps calls it "Omor", the school and medical center are both "Odek"). I came across a few news articles that mention Odek or "Odek Subcounty" within the Omoro District ([7] [8] [9]). This source mentions a former LRA camp at Odek, and this map from OCHA has Odek as a village within Odek Subcounty. At the very least we could merge into a new article for Odek Subcounty. AviationFreak💬 16:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. It is listed as a Sub County/Town Council at [10], so it appears to be a verifiable village/lowest level political subdivision. Sourcing is very thin though. Our coverage of Ugandan local government is lacking, many of the pages use old maps that don't include Oromo District which was split from Gulu in 2016. We definitely keep U.S. and European settlements of similar size and self-government, but they also almost always have more useable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm usually not a fan of WP:NEXIST, but in this case, I think it's fair to say that there are probably plenty of offline sources on this. It's true that sources on similarly-sized towns in Europe and the US are often more accessible, but we shouldn't delete based on that. If anything, it indicates that comparable sources exist for this village, just outside of our reach. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:POPULATED and AviationFreak's research. —siroχo 23:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as AviationFreak has fulfilled the Heymann Standard. I have placed a Sources Exist template in light of Actualcpscm's comment. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:47, 3 August 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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xorcist[edit]

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

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

Not notable. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and California. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Granted, the article is in sad shape and is one that I've got on my list to improve, but the artist meets WP:BAND #5 having multiple releases on 21st Circuitry (a notable indie that was acquired by Metropolis, another notable indie); most of his work under this moniker (and hence coverage) was in the 1990s though he has some releases post-2017, therefore most coverage is not found easily on the web. There may also be opportunity for expansion as Peter Stone to cover his work in video games. -- t_kiehne (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's clear the article meets the criteria for notability (comparable to the Ministry of Sound article). The article definitely needs expansion with more sources, but that by itself is an insufficient reason for deletion, unless we want to delete most of the stub articles across Wikipedia. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the poor sourcing, I think we should get more opinions on this article. The nominator is requested to provide a more complete deletion rationale in future nominations...more than 2 words would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, agree with above on WP:BAND#C5. Notability is presumed. We will not lack for a reasonable amount of WP:VERIFIABLE info, as we have a staff-written AllMusic bio [11] which can be relied on for music-related details. —siroχo

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peoria Babylon[edit]

Peoria Babylon (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 found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:22, 19 July 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 17:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep because the film seems to have been screened at 4 festivals and is mentioned in the book quoted in the article; if not redirect to Ann Cusack, because many sources not on the page mention the film only because she's in it.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 17:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep per above and book mention [12]. DareshMohan (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep. Two regional newspaper reviews and a book mention are probably enough for notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Weak Keeps are balanced out by the nomination statement. Any more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I would support a redirect as detailed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:22, 2 August 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyar Mori Re[edit]

Saiyar Mori Re (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 found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Production has really attracted a lot of attention (sources on the page or [13] or here (Title: "Saiyar Mori Re: a turning point in the Gujarati Film Industry's history" (!)), among other things. So weak keep; or redirect to List of Gujarati films of 2022.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 17:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Found a review from journalist Medha Pandya Bhatt [14]. Other source: [15]. Has unique notability due to Young Gujarati Brothers become Youngest Production House to produce in Gujarati Cinema. DareshMohan (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as per the review and other coverage identified above, another review would help, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:22, 2 August 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. This is a procedural Keep based on the comments of the discussion participants who are advocating that this bundled nomination be split up into individual AFDs or, at least, smaller bundles of similar groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Queensland Debating Society[edit]

University of Queensland Debating Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A batch of university debate societies that all fail notability. Coverage tends to fall into one of the following categories:

• Primary source to university newspaper
• Passing mention as the venue for a talk
• Coverage mentioning that a notable person attended said society. Notability is not WP:INHERITED
• WP:ROUTINE coverage of a good result at a competition. Insufficient for GNG and per WP:NTEAM, GNG is the standard here.

There's a lot of high quality original research here, but alas I don't think any that can be saved without WP:TNT. As a result, I'm also nominating the following articles:

• Queen's_Debating_Union
• Otago_University_Debating_Society
• UCC_Philosophical_Society
• Literary_and_Debating_Society_(University_of_Galway)
• University_Philosophical_Society
• Literary_and_Historical_Society_(University_College_Dublin)
• University_College_Dublin_Law_Society
• Literary_and_Scientific_Society_(Queen's_University_Belfast)
• Glasgow_University_Dialectic_Society

There's a lot more that don't make the cut, but I'll stick to 10 for now and see what reception is like. It sucks to delete so much hard work. There are some debating societies that are undoubtedly notable, but many that unfortunately are not.

BrigadierG (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Schools. BrigadierG (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if you want to float a trial balloon, I'd suggest doing it with one article, not ten. Another way to go might be to redirect the various articles to their associated school BOLDly, and then bringing any you get pushback on to AfD. This discussion seems pretty unworkable, and the lack of participation seems to bear that opinion out. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I floated the one at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_Society,_University_College_Cork and the consensus was strong there. I've tried to follow the process for WP:MULTIAFD here, not sure what else I can do. In the spirit of AfD I'll leave open this vote, but if it looks like it will close with no consensus I will boldly play the executioner. BrigadierG (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the University Philosophical Society "fail[s] notability" is absolutely bizarre and utterly false. The University Philosophical Society is the oldest student society in the world, while also remaining the largest society (not just debating society) in all of Trinity, Ireland's top ranked university. It has a deep and complex history, which is well documented in the wikipedia article. The wikipedia article remains (for now) the main source of information about the Society on the internet. Deleting it would achieve absolutely nothing at all yet be a huge loss for anyone researching such a pivotal society in Irish history. I strongly recommend that such an informative article be kept online. 46.7.206.148 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Northern Ireland and Scotland. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree with the previous commenter, I think probably dealing with these individually is the way to go. I'm only interested in Otago University Debating Society which on the face of it seems to me to arguably meet WP:GNG through articles such as [16], although I agree that the article contains a lot based on primary sources and original research too; whether it does meet the thresholds could probably be debated (hah). Procedurally, I think it's better and clearer to consider each of these articles individually. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Dealing these together makes no sense. Just close this and start again. --Bduke (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep. This is way too many to deal with at once. The results are likely to be heterogeneous as in addition to the possibility of keeps, like University Philosophical Society, merges/redirects are also possible (and should have been considered before the articles were brought here.) --Jahaza (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep per above. Each needs to be looked at on its own merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 7 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Moravsky[edit]

Joe Moravsky (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 obstacle course racer. Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's lots of coverage on this guy through Google News - https://www.google.com/search?q=Joe+Moravsky&client=firefox-b-1-d&tbm=nws&ei=DBqwZOr2Ieyi5NoP7aSsiAI&start=20&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjqrOjLgYyAAxVsEVkFHW0SCyE4ChDw0wN6BAgEEBk&biw=1920&bih=947&dpr=1. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. KatoKungLee stands correct. Even if we discount "American Ninja Warrior Nation" to the fullest extent, the subject would still pass the GNG per sources identified. The article does need improvements, for example in keeping personal and career apart. Yet AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm reluctant to keep an article based on a link to a Google search results page. Have you found any reliable sources you can link to to demonstrate notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 2 August 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 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Calvert[edit]

Samantha Calvert (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:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided and a career high ranking of 111. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 2 August 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. Editors identified at most one example of significant coverage in a reliable source, falling short of WP:GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Roos[edit]

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

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

This article was already nominated for deletion once, the consensus was to delete. A year later somebody recreated it. I don't see anything that has changed since the original deletion to justify maintaining this biography page. Citations in trade publications do not make a person notable. Rhombus (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rhombus (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. Nothing beyond confirmation of employment in sources used. All I find for sourcing is interviews and PR stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete The person will be notable when his track record in his company (IFS AB) or thereafter becomes more significant. At present there do not seem to be enough verified facts to warrant a separate biographical article, and those that exist could be included in his company's article. My Gussie (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep found in depth article in the Financial Mail via the Wikipedia Library and ProQuest:

• Hedley, Nick (20 December 2018). "Darren RoosCEO of software company IFS: Quickly through the ranks". Financial Mail. Retrieved 13 July 2023.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial Mail is a trade publication with a circulation (according to its Wikipedia page!) of ~19,000. A profile in a trade publication does not make a person notable. Is it a publication of record? Like a major national newspaper or financial newspaper? The trouble with magazines like this one is that they very often take money for publication. Also, it's one article. Is that all it takes to be notable enough to end up with a Wikipedia bio?

Let's remember that Wikipedia is often misused by people as an enhanced LinkedIn. There are providers who sell article generation and maintenance for self-promotion as a service. I think that's what is going on here, and we have a responsibility to fight that kind of misuse. Rhombus (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhombus, is there a prohibition against reliable trade publications? Is there a requirement that a reliable source be a "publication of record"? Does this publication publish articles for money? If so, why do annual subscriptions cost 1440 Rand ($80 USD). They claim to be a national news site - is this false?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per searched info by editor above. Seems to overall fall within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Rhombus, is there a prohibition against reliable trade publications? Is there a requirement that a reliable source be a "publication of record"? Does this publication publish articles for money? If so, why do annual subscriptions cost 1440 Rand ($80 USD). They claim to be a national news site - is this false?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Business Live is the website of Business Day, a long established national daily newspaper, that's a WP:RS and the Financial Mail both founded in 1959. It is NOT a "trade publication", but a well-respected publication with a long pedigree. Park3r (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Park3r Do you have ties to Business Day or the Financial Mail? Rhombus (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not have any ties to either publication. I am familiar with both sources as a reader though. Park3r (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that a source be a "publication of record" - but it's a useful rule of thumb, and I mention it to encourage some thought about what it means for a source to be high-quality.

Paid-subscription publications take money for editorial content all the time, and if anything, this problem is getting worse, not better. This is especially true of trade publications. I don't yet see any evidence that this is a reliable source. The onus should be on the person citing to establish that a source is reliable. Rhombus (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Thoroughly unremarkable businessman with run of the mill coverage. I would assume good faith on the part of the article creator however: usually the perps for paid-for vanity articles either have previous form or have done the few edits becessary before creating the lump of fluff.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  TheLongTone, the article's creator, Cossde, has made 25,000+ edits over the last 15 years. The article they started looks well-referenced and neutral. (diff) They are not a paid editor.

  @Rhombus, don't forget to notify the article's creator of this AfD.

  -- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have notified the author. This should normally be part of listing the AfD. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I used the automated tools to post to AfD. I assumed the author would automatically be notified. If that did not occur, I apologise. Rhombus (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable businessman, I don't see anything which clearly passes GNG here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: In what way is Roos "Sweden-related"? I don't find anything in the article linking him to Sweden. /FredrikT (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @FredrikT: Roos is the CEO of IFS AB, a very large software company in Linköping

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Even if the Financial Mail article is reliable, one article is not enough. Per WP:NBLP, multiple sources are needed. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:19, 2 August 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 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Sharma (police officer)[edit]

Deepak Sharma (police officer) (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 police officer, sources are blogs, not meeting GNG. Okoslavia (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Having reviewed the sources when cleaning it up, it doesn't seem like there's much about him. Most of it seems to be passing mentions, still. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Police, India, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The editor who created this has been blocked, and their account globally locked for Undisclosed paid editing in violation of the WMF Terms of Use. — Maile (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails to prove WP:NBIO & WP:GNG.Kind regards –––ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 09:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater 18:32, 7 August 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. The provided sources, which ostensibly show that the subject meets GNG, have not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hyun-sun[edit]

Park Hyun-sun (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)

Her only achievement is that she competed in the 2012 Summer Olympics. I did a search online and she was ranked 12th in those games. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Charsaddian (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. There's a chance that non-English language sources exist which I have not been able to find, but with a single 12th placed finish at the Olympics, this doesn't seem likely. I'll reconsider my !vote if someone can unearth something; as it stands, this fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. WJ94 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the sources provided by Socccc this now meets GNG. WJ94 (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and South Korea. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Bronze medalists at the 2010 Asian Games; Korea's first medal at the event since 2002 (1, 2). 2012 Biographical profile in The Hankyoreh. Pre-Olympics interview with Seoul Broadcasting System. Reaching the final round of the 2012 Olympics, even to finish 12th, was Korea's best performance in 12 years and the second finals appearance in the nation's history, since Jang Yoon-kyeong and Yoo Na-mi (1, 2). Return from Olympics covered (1). Retirement after the games also covered (1). Additional WP:ROUTINE coverage of their Olympics: 1. -Socccc (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same sources apply to Park Hyun-ha, also under AfD. The sisters competed in both the Asian Games and Olympics as a duet. -Socccc (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Socccc's analysis confirms WP:SPORTBASIC. —siroχo 23:08, 2 August 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hyun-ha[edit]

Park Hyun-ha (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)

Her only achievement is that she competed in the 2012 Summer Olympics. I did a search online and she was ranked 12th in those games. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Charsaddian (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. There's a chance that non-English language sources exist which I have not been able to find, but with a single 12th placed finish at the Olympics, this doesn't seem likely. I'll reconsider my !vote if someone can unearth something; as it stands, this fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. WJ94 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the sources provided by Socccc at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Hyun-sun this now meets GNG. WJ94 (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and South Korea. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See sources cited at Park Hyun-sun, which also apply to Hyun-ha since they competed in duet. -Socccc (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please link to sources and describe how they meet the gang for this individual
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Socccc's analysis confirms WP:SPORTBASIC. —siroχo 23:08, 2 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volothamp Geddarm[edit]

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

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

Lack of significant coverage in third-party sources. What little we have is a passing mention and two references from a non-notable magazine that ran for 1.5 years in the mid-90s, and isn't even listed on the page of its publisher. Dates are screwed up because of some old edit wars over tags, but the article has had maintenance tags since 2008. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Games. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What little we have gives us a decent reception section as a basis for a non-stubby article, thus fullfilling WP:WHYN. The Paste article dedicates 2+ paragraphs to Volo, so that's not a passing mention in my view. I don't see why Arcane should not be considered reliable for its area of expertise, i.e. fantasy. In addition to the present sources, this Giochi per il mio computer article, p. 102, has a paragraph dedicated explicitly to Volo. Sources with shorter commentary are Dungeons & Dragons is changing how it makes books, Volo's Guide to Monsters giveaway, Composing Media Composing Embodiment. Daranios (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Arcane was not a long-lived magazine, but as a full-colour glossy that published each month on time and used a stable of good writers and artists, it was respected in the field of fantasy role-playing while it lasted. Its reader poll to determine the best 50 RPGs of all time was a first for the industry, and is still used extensively in other wiki articles. Neither of the reviews in Arcane nor the article in Paste were "passing mentions", and both delved into the reasons for the popularity of Volothamp. I would like to see some of the sources indicated by Daranios incorporated into the article, but even without them, the article is notable. Guinness323 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I feel the issue here is perhaps that the character themselves is being used where a series article would make more sense. The article itself states "It is through Volo's perspective that Ed Greenwood authored his detailed Forgotten Realms lore-books of the Volo's Guide series". It's possible this could be moved to Volo's Guide and be about the series, mentioning the actual character within the context of that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Although I see what you are saying, at what point does a fictional character become notable enough to have their own article? Guinness323 (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GNG states that multiple sources of significance are needed. I am unconvinced that Volo is notable based on the sources provided, but I haven't !voted to merge or something because I feel like the series itself is actually notable. Paste Magazine's definitely the biggest, but it entirely talks about him in the context of how the books are from his perspective. Meanwhile, the Polygon article that isn't the giveaway is meatily about Volo's Guide but only tangentially about Volo himself. Therefore I think the best option here is to move it to the Volo's Guide series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't care too much either way. I think the commentary of secondary sources on Volo as a literary device would fit equally well into our article here or a Volo's Guides article. The commentary on Volo as a character (like the short sentences in the Polygon articles and the whole content of the Giochi per il mio computer article) fit better into our article dedicated to the character, but could be fitted into a series article as well. It remains that I believe there's enough material for the character to be notable (and too much to conveniently fit into Forgotten Realms#Characters), and the question of how to present that material best is a secondary question, which ideally can be solved outside a deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Seems to have a lot more real-world significance than most other D&D characters. I'm seeeing some usable coverage in the popular press (e.g., in relation to the recent film) and academic work (e.g., in relation to him as an 'author' of real-world books). Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above comments on available sourcing. BOZ (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I will put my vote in as acknowledging that something about Volo is probably notable - I think it's the series, but that's more of a matter for a move discussion than an AfD, and some manner of page about him should remain on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 5 August 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 00:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Taylor (musician)[edit]

Jane Taylor (musician) (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 pass WP:NMG, an the entirety of Career and Biography sections are written like a resume/promo piece. Qcne (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of Career and Biography also appear to be directly lifted from the singers' website, and a quick attempt to find sources only found a very short promotional article on NewarkAdvertiser about an upcoming concert. Delete. MikuFan39 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays (Meghan Trainor featuring Earth, Wind & Fire song)[edit]

Holidays (Meghan Trainor featuring Earth, Wind & Fire 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)

Fails WP:NSONGS. While the song seems to have made some component charts (not official national charts), there isn't any coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Today, while reliable, is an NBC show and doesn't count as a secondary source for coverage of a performance on another NBC show. NØ 13:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, never charted and no coverage outside of the one performance. I was looking into NBC, they don't own the record label she sings for, Sony does. It's not cross promotion having her on the show, so less of a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the article survives this process, its title should be swapped with Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), which is currently a redirect to the parent album. All that disambiguation is unnecessary and awkward, and there would no confusion with other things at Holiday (disambiguation). See the article's infobox too. (This is not a comment on the song's notability.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Very Trainor Christmas. Little to no coverage about the song outside of album reviews. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG, so NSONG is not necessary. Note that I saw this page creation in the new pages feed and reviewed it. When the nominating user changed the page to a redirect, I figured I'd put the investigation I did during the new page review to use to add sources and restore the page. I found:
  • There's approximately 100 words of SIGCOV dedicated to the song, published 2 years after the song, in a biography of the band Earth Wind & Fire, published by University Press of Mississippi, titled Do You Remember? Celebrating Fifty Years of Earth, Wind & Fire

• There are probably a 100 of the band's songs covered in the biography, it does not impart individual notability to all of them as this does not constitute standalone coverage. The one line about how "the song embodies EWF's classic sound, with pulsating horns and a funky bassline" can be extremely comfortably accomodated on the album article.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because an independent, reliable source covers a 100 of a band's songs does not prevent it from imparting notability from a particular song if the coverage of that song is significant enough. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Hollywood Life article is about 150 words of SIGCOV of various aspects of a performance (with further coverage of the album, not counted in the word count)

• The Hollywood Life is a pathetic and unreliable tabloid imo that should never be used as a source. Shocklingly, one user at RSN considered it reliable but even that discussion seems to have concluded it should not be used to gauge notability.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Today.com article is a few hundred words of SIGCOV addressing visual aspects of different performances of the song, including a music video, and does seem to be independent of the subject of the article (the song).

I did encounter other short coverage beyond trivial that I didn't reference in the article. —siroχo 18:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have already covered why the Today source does not count as a secondary source for the purposes of notability, for their coverage of a performance on another NBC show.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Today does not count as a secondary source for this song. The song is not owned by NBC and so Today is a secondary source with respect to coverage of the song. Rlendog (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Due to article corresponding to Wikipedia:Notability (music) with said song's ranking on the US Holiday Digital Song Sales chart along with Canadian Adult Contemporary Songs chart. Hence song is well in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (music) in being ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. What's more the song has been independently released as a single by Meghan Trainor featuring Earth, Wind & Fire, who are both two very notable musical artists.Scriber88Talk 19:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well Holidays was of course released as a single, a fact that's firstly been verified and corroborated via Meghan Trainor - Holidays, the song's music video. What's this has been further substantiated via People https://people.com/music/meghan-trainor-releases-holiday-music-video-earth-wind-fire/, Entertainment Tonight, https://etcanada.com/news/716993/meghan-trainor-gets-festive-for-holidays-music-video/ and Page six https://pagesix.com/2020/12/03/earth-wind-fire-singer-says-band-doesnt-have-groupies-anymore/. Song is also notable having over 4.4 million views on YouTube whilst being critically acclaimed by GQ https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/christmas-songs-2020-ranked, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution https://www.ajc.com/life/music-blog/music-notes-this-year-we-need-a-little-christmas-music-more-than-ever/C3ZPP5XPMVEI7DQREJKRRZGRBQ/, The Spokesman-Review https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/nov/26/its-dolly-parton-carrie-underwood-meghan-trainor-l/ and AllMusic https://www.allmusic.com/album/a-very-trainor-christmas-mw0003422402.

Holidays is undoubtedly in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and what not. Certainly the song and article should be continually maintained in soing to offer an illustration of such notability. Scriber88 (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of the charts you have mentioned are "national or significant music or sales charts". They are component charts which could do with a mention on the album article. Also see WP:NOTINHERITED for arguments to avoid during a deletion discussion.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: One of the keep votes above is the creator of the article and the other "restored" it before this AfD. The pile-on keep votes with flawed arguments should be weighted accordingly.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan, I think it's predictable that an article creator would arguing for keeping an article they created in a deletion discussion. But they can participate in AFDs just like any editor. I don't see that their work on an article discounts the argument they are making in a discussion. I disagree when in some other AFDs an article creator's comments are tagged as if that means they are less important than other people's opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:17, 2 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maarten van der Duin[edit]

Maarten van der Duin (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)

Tagged since May with notability, primary sources and lack of citations, this problematic biographical article's subject fails WP:GNG, confirmed by a WP:BEFORE. No evident notability as screenwriter, stage director or creative consultant, the three roles ascribed to him in the article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Netherlands. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"... he has been nominated for several awards that are notable awards based on the awards also having Wikipedia pages.Naomijeans (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Were these really awards he received or awards media units he contributed to received? gidonb (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until and unless better sourcing can be found. None of his awards appear to be "well-known and significant" which is a higher level than notability. The current sourcing is insufficient to support any article much less a WP:BLP. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found some passing mentions in books and surprisingly little in the press. He contributed to media units that were nominated and/or awarded prizes. That is nice yet unless the director, just maybe the producer, does not count toward notability. It mostly counts toward the unit's notability. If the award is more specific to the domain of that person (e.g. for the screenplay or special effects) we should again consider it. Also the GNG would still need to be met. gidonb (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to meet the following criterion (3) for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To your opinion, does he also pass the WP:GNG? gidonb (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but he seems to be notable as screenwriter. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After reviewing the subject's contributions to notable works, focusing on Het verhaal van Nederland, 14 - Diaries of the Great War and Small Hands in a Big War with some quick glances at others, I concur with Mushy Yank's analysis of WP:CREATIVE.C3. The subjects contributions are major and the works are significant. —siroχo 23:35, 2 August 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, retitle, and reframe‎ as an article about the place. The argument that there is an inhabited place with a related name that would meet GEOLAND has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonbarsa Raj[edit]

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

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

This article has only two sources and that too donot cover it in depth. They fail WP: THREE and definitely don't fulfill WP:GNG. ~ Admantine123 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Admantine123 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For a dynasty that's claimed to be in existence for almost 300 years (assuming the dates in the article are reliably sourced) find it surprising there isn't more coverage. Only just come across this AfD and request a relist please to allow time to look into this. Rupples (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: to make things confusing, there's a town by this name, too.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. Good point. I'm thinking along the lines of whether this article could be kept as part of the history of the village/town, if it can be reliably established the two are linked. Rupples (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/recommendation. This article was significantly refocussed in January 2022, when the infobox for the 'block' was removed. Official sources (2011 census and govt websites) indicate "Raj" has been dropped from the place name. Sources don't seem quite sufficient to satisfy GNG for the historical raj itself but the material does form part of the place/area's history. Suggest renaming the article "Sonbarsa, Saharsa"; reinstating infobox settlement; removing the raj infobox and keeping the existing text in a History section. Basically this amounts to a keep and move recommendation with presumed notability for the place under WP:GEOLAND. Rupples (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move - I concur with Rupples's assessment that this is something of a hijacked article. N.b. there's a Sonbarsa in Nepal that would be in need of hatnote disambiguation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:10, 10 August 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 Rowing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed pair. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Abe (rower)[edit]

Osamu Abe (rower) (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. Notable for one Olympic event where he did not score, and I can't find any sources about him or his life. Jaguarnik (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Japan at the 1936 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rowing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed pair. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS as he did not win a medal. Also fails WP:SPORTBASIC which requires "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (The event page is the richer redirect as it refelcts details of Abe's performance at each stage.) Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirect targets proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rowing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed pair. Per reasoning above.  あやかなあ?  (talk) 19:18, 2 August 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 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dianelis Carbonell[edit]

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

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. No indication of notability. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:08, 3 August 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 Cuban football players who have defected to the United States. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Riquelme[edit]

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

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

The subject made at least two appearances for the Cuba women's national football team before defecting to the U.S. in 2018. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cuban football players who have defected to the United States.--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ollancy Arrebato[edit]

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

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

The subject has made at least three appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:08, 3 August 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 Robinsons Malls#Philippines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsons Pangasinan[edit]

Robinsons Pangasinan (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)

Unsure if this mall is notable- it has had an advert tag since 2012 and does read like an advertisement. Sources are primary or non-notable. I do not think it passes GNG. Qcne (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robinsons Malls#Philippines: No good results from WP:BEFORE to pass GNG. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. --- Tito Pao (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robinsons Malls#Philippines per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yesmi Rodríguez[edit]

Yesmi 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)

The subject made at least three appearances for the Costa Rica women's national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Costa Rica. JTtheOG (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:08, 3 August 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 Guatemala women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariandre Rodas[edit]

Mariandre Rodas (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)

Redirect to List of Guatemala women's international footballers. The subject made at least one appearance for the Guatemala women's national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this, though it's from a non-independent source. JTtheOG (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Guatemala. JTtheOG (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect' as above. GiantSnowman 19:09, 3 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole Djekruassem[edit]

Anatole Djekruassem (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)

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. One official appearance for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect' as above. GiantSnowman 19:09, 3 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appolinaire Djingabeye[edit]

Appolinaire Djingabeye (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)

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. Four official appearances for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect No refs found at all, only player lists. Redirect is ok Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect' as above. GiantSnowman 19:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary German[edit]

Zachary German (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to only have the one novel out and I can find no coverage of this author in the last decade. There is a single review of his novel in Publishers Weekly (link) plus the Vice documentary, but by itself that's not enough to prove he meets notability guidelines. That said, he's still a young author so this article may simply be a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. If he publishes more works and receives corresponding coverage proving notability, we can always recreate the article. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GeoAccess[edit]

GeoAccess (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Doesn't seem to have enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Business, Companies, Computing, United States of America, and Kansas. UtherSRG (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not too much coverage, the best one is the Inc profile, but there is just not enough here. Royal88888 (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing that meets ORGCRIT. Would suggest a redirect to UnitedHealth Group which purchased it in 2002. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 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. While meeting GEOLAND is generally sufficient for keeping an article, we do require evidence in the form of reliable sources that the topic is in fact a legally recognized settlement: that seems to be missing here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enkhali[edit]

Enkhali (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)

PROD declined for this essentially fallacious article on a non-existent Dubai community. This is not a notable place, the article does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:GEOLAND, the place named is not mentioned in any secondary sources and most definitely not in the publication given in the bibliography. One of a number of essentially fallacious place articles created by this blocked user, even the image is a generic picture recaptioned to be of 'Enkhali'. For some reason this got missed in the cleanup effort following the creator's block. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per my reasoning on my prod. "As a community with a population of only 2, only sourced with passing mentions in statistical databases, I feel this community is entirely non-notable." Bensci54 (talk) 15:38, 19 July 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 11:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It may "feel" non-notable, but it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place, which is one of our lowest notability standards, and for good reason. Problem is, it's in Sector 6 per the census, and there's not a lot more we can say about it that I can find - the deletion rationale isn't invalid. Since the creator has been blocked I don't really care if this is deleted - just want to note that whatever happens, anyone who wants to re-create this article would be doing so on a topic we've deemed notable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It not only "feels" non-notable, it "IS" non-notable. It's claimed to be in the middle of the totally, utterly unpopulated area between Awir and Lahbab - it's a desert. It's not a village or a community or a recognised place - it's desert. Seriously, dunes and camel camps. Desert. I quite often drive past there. There's not even a signpost off the E44 to mark 'Enkhali' - it's not even searchable on Google maps. It's all sandy and deserty and, well, deserted. It has no houses. Nada. Zero. Zilch. It's as unpopulated as it's possible to be these days in Dubai, the emirate. Nobody's deemed it notable for anything - it's a wholly unpopulated place. It's the Norwegian Blue of populated places, nailed to its perch - in the desert. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. It's a populated, legally recognised place. Is it worth keeping as this stub? Probably not, but I have no problem if anyone wants to re-create this if there's anything else we can say about it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You remember the great John Carter train crash? My run of >150 UAE AfDs? This user was on the way to creating another one, having got hold of a PDF from Dubai Municipality and then creating articles about 'places' he found in there. Whatever, wherever 'Enkhali' is supposed to be, it's not a village or populated place and its existence isn't supported by any RS. Between Awir and Lahbab there is literally nothing bar a palace - with the vast majority of the land to that side of the road between Awir and Lahbab cordoned off around that palace - and some civil infrastructure - there's a place name Nakhali (a concrete plant named for it) just as you get to Lahbab, arguably subsumed by the expansion of Lahbab. Anyway, that's me - as always with appreciation for your concerns re: GEOLAND (I have saved many a place at AfD having gleefully nicked your arguments! ;) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you absolutely positive it doesn't contain a protected Norwegian Blue nesting site or maybe a ministry-approved Silly Walks Training Academy? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  You can never be 100% certain these days. We live in terrible times... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. @Alexandermcnabb: Is there a list of political subdivisions published by the government that we can refer to? In some Canadian provinces, for example, an area too sparsely populated to have a municipal government is called a "local improvement district"? It would be nice to know how the Dubai government characterizes Enkhali. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominator who knows this place. Or rather, knows this place's non-notability. Desolate, God-forsaken, lifeless places like this serve a vital role: they help hold the Earth together. In this part of the world, that's all some places are able to do. It's a noble and essential task; if just one of them let go, the Earth's crust might begin failing; Alexander would be among the first to go. So credit is due them. Just not articles without reliable sources.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over dozens of AFDs tonight, most of them irresolvably divided between Keepers/Deleters, I needed a laugh, thanks, A. B.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• delete This thing smells of fraud. There is a reference to it in the census document, but it's striking that the reference is used only to justify the area of this place (whatever it is), with the population of two and the population density of zero conveniently tucked into the infobox. Meanwhile, the original source of the image of the camel does not mention this place or for that matter any other place other than "unnamed road", and there's no source given for the location of this place. Given that it was created by someone with a history of such frauds, I have to wonder why anyone is defending it. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mangoe:

  SportingFlyer -- a very experienced editor, editing in good faith. I trust them 100%, ethics-wise. I suspect that if they ever did decide go to the dark side, it wouldn't be on behalf of a place like this.

  Jad Krimeed -- the article's creator was a problem and is now indefinitely blocked.

  The Camel -- the camel wandered away.

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just interpreting our policy very literally - it's a legally recognised place, so it's technically eligible for an article. Whether this is a good or bad thing is left as an exercise to the reader. SportingFlyer T·C 22:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's more like you are interpreting the one official source literally, which our experience with GNS and GNIS and the Iranian census leads me to reject. That one word in a column heading is not good enough; even were it not a translation I would doubt it. Look, two people is a community only in the most mathematically reductive sense, and even then I have to assume they live in two separate houses. Also, it's only a guideline anyway, but in any case the history of these discussions is that we have required more evidence of a settlement than a tag or column heading in a government listing. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flutlicht[edit]

Flutlicht (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 DJ, fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried a .ch website search, nothing turns up other than this [17] about a music festival and I'm not even sure it's the same group. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apart from discogs and some random sites, no reliable independent sources for notability.CourtseyDriver (talk) 23:27, 3 August 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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab University Law College[edit]

Punjab University Law College (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 isn't talking about the college but about listing of people purported to be from the college. A similar list is located in here: Category:Punjab University Law College alumni. At present, there is no notability claim about the college; a list of famous people from there does not show the college's notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Education can be understood but why "India" there are many Indian Alumni of this particular institute and I've also added citations Dawood Ch 471 (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What could I do to prevent it from deletion? It was created Specifically as an Alumni page but I can make it a descriptional page of that college if that would prevent it from deletion. Dawood Ch 471 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it can. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've stubified the article and I'm confident that more sources can be developed beyond the few I've used. Jahaza (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:

  - The article now has some sources. Though needs improvement.

  - @ ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact), can you confirm you followed WP:BEFORE and did search for potential sources and failed to find any.

  - Note as per WP:N: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any."

  - I would find it very odd that there are not many adequate sources for the law school that seems to have produced the most prominant lawyers in a country. Jagmanst (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article certainly needs rewriting and trimming, but the topic is notable per WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Need some formating but Notable.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Keep this article. I don't understand Why nominate this article for deletion?--Fahads1982 (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ikot Mkpang[edit]

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

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

WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of meeting WP:NPLACE: that this place is legally recognised and not just mentioned in online databases. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Nigeria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: at first glance, this looks very non-notable on a satellite image (assuming Google went to the right place)

This brings back painful memories of a very long contentious AfD about a similar uninhabited place on the map in Nigeria:

• • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria (3rd nomination)

It didn't help that there was some involvement with a troll group.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's our List of villages in Cross River State article. There is an "Ikot Mkpang Esighi" village listed in Bakassi, however that district is much further away from Calabar and now part of Cameroon. There's no other "Ikot Mkpang" on the list.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal Knowledge Core[edit]

Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal Knowledge Core (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 PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. An impact factor is listed, but the journal is not indexed in any Clarivate database, so this is fake. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator, removing the IF and adding some references that either are not independent or don't mention the journal at all. Therefore PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Brazil. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This clearly has no significance for the English Wikipedia, but I thought it might conceivably be significant in Brazil or Portugal, but I can't find anything. Athel cb (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Help: This is my first time editing and putting up an article on Wikipedia and I apologize maybe I was a little hasty. I ask for advice if possible for future attempts. I wanted to add scientific open-access journals that are in Brazil to have more visibility due to the difficulties we have here with exposing information outside Brazil. That was my only purpose but I guess I jumped the gun. I will need more time to make these journals get acknowledged and advise them to go through procedures for these changes. I started with the journal because I liked its content and youtube videos that were very knowledgeable. Thank you for your time, thoughts, and future counseling. GusSamaha (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Checkout this Wikiproject:

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals

  You may want to introduce yourself and your goals at the talk page:

  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals

  That's a "Wikiproject". (Wikipédia:Projetos on pt.wikipedia).

  I'd offer to help but I know little about journals.

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Indexed nowhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could not find any sourcing that might save this through GNG rather than through NJOURNALS. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — could not find any significant independent coverage or entries in selective indexes. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Seich[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NSPORT as a former gymnast. Let'srun (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Nebraska, and New Jersey. Let'srun (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The criteria of WP:NGYMNASTICS do not appear to be satisfied, nor does there appear to be material that would meet a general claim of notability, either in the article or available using a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phillippa Williamson[edit]

Phillippa Williamson (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)

Local politician in UK - Meets neither WP:POLITICIAN ("Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability") or WP:GNG - where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? - Most of the sourcing is routine or passing mentions. Paul W (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete. Plenty of news about her in the various local Lancashire newspapers, but nothing nationally that I can find. Qcne (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. County council is not a level of government that guarantees "inherent" notability per WP:NPOL — the notability test for a county councillor is not "she exists", but "her work on the county council has been externally analyzed by reliable sources to a depth and degree that would make her a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for county councillors". But that's not what's being shown here, as the article is just written like a résumé, says nothing to suggest any reason why anybody outside of Lancashire needs to know about her, and is based almost entirely on primary sources rather than WP:GNG-building coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:55, 5 August 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 Companion (Doctor Who). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Jones (Doctor Who)[edit]

Sam Jones (Doctor Who) (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 a companion and a notable character in universe, Sam has very little sourcing, and a search for sources yields next to no results. While the article cites a pair of books, they aren't used for any citations, and as I don't own the books, it's up in the air on how much they actually discuss the article's subject in depth. She's listed at the Companion article, so a redirect there is probably the best AtD right now. That being said, if anyone can verify those books, there's an argument for the article being kept, but as it stands, I don't think the article really justifies its existence. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the list of Dr Who companions (characters). No reception, the article is just a plot summary with a list of media that character appeared in, thus failing WP:GNG as written.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect per Piotrus. Not enough reliable reception to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:33, 6 August 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 Companion (Doctor Who). (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fey Truscott-Sade[edit]

Fey Truscott-Sade (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 a rather notable character in universe and a Companion, the article cites no sources and my BEFORE didn't turn up any results. It's highly possible that some information on things such as development of the character may exist in physical sources, but I don't believe that it's enough to justify this character's article existing separately. She's listed at both the Companions and Supporting Doctor Who characters article, so a redirect would be a viable alternative to deletion. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely unsourced, and they do not seem to have the sources available that are required for notability. I would not be opposed to a redirect if a good target is found. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Pokelego999: Can you explain why you withdrew your first AfD on this subject? Let'srun (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short, I nominated too many AfDs at once when I first nominated this, alongside many other articles. I ended up withdrawing many that hadn't been replied to as a result. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Have Women in Doctor Who, p. 164, and Companions - Fifty Years of Doctor Who Assistants been considered as secondary sources? There's also a short mention in Encyclopedia of Weird War Stories, p. 59. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  From what I can tell of source three, it seems to be a passing mention, and the Companions book doesn't seem to go beyond basic plot information. I'm unsure of Women in Doctor Who as I can't access Page 164 in question, but even still, I don't think these are enough to justify the article. Even if Women in Doctor Who gives a boatload of info and analysis, it's one source as the entirety of the character's reception. There'd need to be more there, and unless it exists in physical media, nothing else could be found. The other two sources would be handy for discussing background information in the article more than anything. I just don't think it's enough for the article to stand on. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pokelego999: So aside from the fact, that some plot summary is fine when balanced by real-world commentary, the question would be, where would the content from Women in Doctor Who go? I guess it's an academic question for now as no such content is yet present. I guess it could go to Companion (Doctor Who), but would break the current page structure. Daranios (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect as WP:ATD. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV, but there is a valid redirect target where this can be mentioned. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, I guess to Companion (Doctor Who), for the time being. We have one extended secondary source and one with plot summary (+one comment on bisexuality), so there is something encyclopedic to cover on the character, but it seems below the WP:GNG threshold so far. The page history should be preserved for future use, and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 07:22, 7 August 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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Eppy[edit]

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

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

A single cap with the United States men's national soccer team. I was unable to find any in depth secondary sources, failing WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A US national player and member of the Olympic team, which are no small accomplishments. Obit mentions him as being a well-recognized name in STL and the St. Louis Sports Hall of fame calls him a "local legend." Inducted into the STL Soccer HOF. In-depth story here from USSoccer.com, though I'm not sure that'd count as independent. A SIGCOV story from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch here (p2). Plenty of mentions in Newspapers.com (e.g. 1 2 3). This feels like someone who should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Completely agree this does feel like an article which should be kept based on the public information we have available, even though football wasn't well covered in the USA at the time (St Louis was actually one of the exceptions.) I can't access any of the newspaper links, though. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer: Do they work now? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think so! Thank you for clipping them. SportingFlyer T·C 21:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC, BeanieFan has shown there is enough to pass the basic criteria, which also makes me feel the nominator hasn't bothered doing a WP:BEFORE. :/ Govvy (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In fairness to the nom this is the sort of article which needs a bit of sleuthing to WP:BEFORE since it's all pre-internet, but that also means more care needs to be taken. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I always conduct a Before check and looked at ProQuest and Newspapers.com. Let'srun (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to pass WP:GNG in multiple historical sources. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Its close, but I do think that there's enough here for notability per WP:NBASIC. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Dobert[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability except for dying in a plane crash, which would be WP:BIO1E. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, United States of America, and Maryland. UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not finding evidence of notability in source search, and to my knowledge we have no SNGs that cover non-elected government officials. If the only thing she was notable for was her death in the 1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash, her name listed there as a victim (as it is) should suffice. ASUKITE 15:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The dying in a plane crash has coverage and there is A bill For the relief of the estate of Gail E. Dobert. But I'm not finding anything else in my search. The bill is interesting, but I'm not sure it's notable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Deputy director for the Office of Business Liaison" is not a position that confers "inherent" notability under WP:NPOL, but this is not referenced to anything like the volume of reliable source coverage it would take to get her over WP:GNG for it: there's one obituary about her, which is fine but not in and of itself enough, and otherwise this is based entirely on glancing namechecks of her existence in the air crash coverage and primary sources, which are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 3 August 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 Bernard Baars. ✗plicit 00:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Consciousness Review[edit]

Science and Consciousness Review (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 very old website appears to fail WP:GNG. Despite the name and the association of several prominent scientists with it, it is not an academic journal. I could not find any secondary coverage of the website from a web search or Google Scholar. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Psychology, and Internet. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A 2018 book [18] describes it as apparently defunct. That is about when the Wayback Machine stopped capturing it; their most recent image is from that August [19], and every post there is already years old. So far, I'm not finding evidence that an article is warranted here, though I also imagine that in this case a redirect wouldn't hurt, if there were a suitable target. (Perhaps Bernard Baars, the founding editor?) XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sourcing found, defunct website. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few mentions in Gscholar, confirming existence but nothing for GNG. [20] Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bernard Baars, which already mentions the Review on his article as the founding editor. Let'srun (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no in-depth coverage, not even brief coverage. Not notable

FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:31, 3 August 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.