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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gobbe[edit]

Ryan Gobbe (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:MUSICBIO. None of the sources are WP:SIGCOV about this person. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is just a blatant advertisement. It’s not blatant enough for g11 but it’s still pretty blatant. As I’ve said before we are not SoundCloud. This person has no notability and has not been notable in the past. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I could not find any secondary coverage outside of a passing mention in an interview with someone else. Out of the cited sources, I think only the InTheMix review could contribute to notability, so we're plainly failing WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article of a non-notable musician. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a notable, clearly fails GNG. Poor coverage and lack of reliable source. Ekdalian (talk) 14:38, 4 September 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 Godzilla (franchise)#Filmography. ✗plicit 04:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kamacuras[edit]

Kamacuras (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 recurring Kaiju in the Godzilla series and generally notable in universe, I can't find much more Kamacuras beyond listicles, passing mentions, and the like. The article itself is all plot, and unlike a lot of other Godzilla Kaiju, there isn't much developmental info that would warrant the article sticking around either. I just don't think there's enough to justify the article's existence separately from anything else. An AtD could be a redirect to Son of Godzilla, given that it seems to be where Kamacuras are most notable, but if anyone has a better suggestion, or found sources that may justify the article's existence that I may have missed in my BEFORE, then feel free to suggest or mention it. I'd like to keep this around, but as it stands, I don't think Kamacuras has much to stand on. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Not seeing how the article even tries to estabilish notability, and my BEFORE just gave few mentions in passing. Ping me if SIGCOV coverage that goes beyond plot summary is found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you recommend a Redirect or Merge, please supply the target article you are proposing this article be directed to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Godzilla (franchise) per Piotrus. If someone wanted to start organizing a character list from the franchise, that might be useful. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to pass our guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Godzilla (franchise)#Filmography - No sources really showing that they're particularly notable, and since they have never really been the "featured" kaiju of a movie, always just appearing in films with an ensemble of monsters or as stock footage/cameos, there's not really a single movie that would serve as a great target for a redirect. The film list for the franchise, which already includes a column showing which monsters appeared in each film, would thus be the best target, as anyone searching for the monster would be redirected straight to a list where they can easily see their appearances. Rorshacma (talk) 06:12, 5 September 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!} 23:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Liberal Party (2003)[edit]

Mexican Liberal Party (2003) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a minor Mexican political party that existed for about a year (2002-2003) and got only 0,42% of the vote in the 2003 Mexican legislative election, leading to its dissolution. The article previously existed as Mexican Liberal Party (2002–03) but that was redirected to 2003 Mexican legislative election (this is perhaps the best solution for the present article as well). There's not a whole lot of significant coverage (this seems to be the exception) so deletion or redirection seem like the way to go. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Mexico. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Party received over 100,000 votes in a national election, which IMO makes it notable. Coverage also to be found in other sources.[1][2][3] Cheers, Number 57 11:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Although i agree with you, i think every political party deserves recognition as long as it has notable info!, cheers too you! 52Timer (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That means you would also have too include a few more Mexican political parties into this discussion, why delete this one if it is similar to other lost Political parties like for example: “México Posible 2002-2003” the article has much less than this one so it wouldn’t be fair deleting this one. Instead this article should be considered a stub or more rework, Furthermore. This seems like your typical stub of political parties and 90% of this article comes from the Spanish Wikipedia and fully corrected and worked with actual sources! 52Timer (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This one passes WP:GNG through the sources provided by Number_57, despite the short time the party existed. User:Let'srun 21:45, 6 September 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. The official closure is "No consensus". But I can see the possibility, in the future, of an editor Merging or Redirecting this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BentallGreenOak[edit]

BentallGreenOak (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 investment company, seems to be affiliated with SunLife, which could perhaps be a merge target. I can only find PR pieces about them. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - see:
  • Ex-M.Stanley bankers launch new property venture (Reuters)
  • The Bengal GreenOak merger was ‘like two puzzle pieces coming together” (PERE)
    • PERE covers the primary private equity real estate world with a circulation of 35,000. It's not dependent on ads or press releases; subscriptions cost $3000+

These provide substantial explanations of the company's business.

BentallGreenOak is huge - they manage $47 billion worth of real estate.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only coverage are WP:ROUTINE press releases and the like. Andre🚐 04:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither of those 2 articles are press releases -- why did you say that?

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Read ROUTINE, it includes articles that are just press announcements of mergers and the like. Andre🚐 21:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read ROUTINE. I disagree with your assessment. These provide in-depth explanations of the company's activities.

  Why do you really want to get rid of this article?

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you see how the the reuters article starts with a location, date, source (e.g. LONDON, Aug 2 (Reuters))? That's how you know its PR. Here's the announcement from Tetragon and you can see the Reuters article regurgitates it - fails ORGIND. The Pere article though is good enough to meet NCORP criteria as it contains in-depth opinion/analysis. On another read-through, no, the author uses a technique of summarising what has been said which was made clear by the included quotes later in the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its an enormous firm that do direct commercial lending across the UK and Ireland for real estate transactions. Press Up Entertainment and Paddy McKillen among the clients Here. Its among the Top 50 lenders into property in Europe, almost all of the rest have a Wikipedia page. [4]Financefactz (talk) 11:11, 11 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!} 23:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete there are several concerns regarding its notability and compliance with Wikipedia's standards:

General Notability: Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a standalone article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Although the article mentions various acquisitions and investments made by BGO, and the above editors indicated some possible reliable sources it does not provide enough significant independent and secondary sources to establish its notability beyond basic facts. --VertyBerty (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Was Sun Life Financial the possible Merge target you had in mind Oaktree b?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was yes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, right now looking like a No Consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sun Life Financial. Sometimes even billion-dollar companies seem to fail the notability criteria. I'm unable to locate any substantial significant articles about the company or analyst reports that provide in-depth information. I'm surprised HighKing⁺⁺ 20:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This is not the best forum for debating the basis for this list, it's to consider whether or not this article should be kept and on that note, I see no consensus. A future rename or complete rewrite can be considered on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of books considered the best[edit]

List of books considered the best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is not notable, probably used for advertisement of the books. Wikipedia is not for deciding which book is best. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NLIST, as described in the article itself eg Time's List of the 100 Best Novels, Modern Library 100 Best Novels, The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English . The selection criteria is clear and reflects NPOV approach by relying explicitly on multiple RS for every entry; further RS could easily be added if it improves neutrality. I see no sign of WP:PROMO. Perhaps move to List of novels considered the best considering the topic. —siroχo 18:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's relevant to mention that List of novels considered the greatest was actually deleted at AfD last July (link). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't participate there, but from the comments it appears that article had substantial problems that this one does not share. —siroχo 21:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd note that Time's List of the 100 Best Novels is sourced only to Time, Modern Library 100 Best Novels is weakly sourced (and cite 1 is a pretty good criticism that it only listed those it published), and The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English is mainly sourced to the Guardian! I'll suggest merging all of these, along with others listed at List of top book lists which are similarly short or poorly sourced, into a single article. Maybe maintain that article and just have subsections about each list, and another section that includes those named on multiple lists. I mean, List of films considered the best has been kept seven times, but it's structured quite differently, but just because those rankings exist doesn't mean this article meets NLIST as it is. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do like this plan, I think it could be a solid article that would improve the state of all the articles you're mentioning, including this one. As it's too complex an outcome for AfD I will stick with my above !vote, but would support this proposal in a discussion (whether after a BOLD attempt, or as a proposal) —siroχo 21:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Despite the title, this is not a list of books considered the best. By its very construction (The books listed here are included on at least three separate "best/greatest of all time" lists from different publications, as chosen by their editorial staffs/authors.), it is a list of books considered among the best. I think it's highly dubious if that's a valid way of constructing the list in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't be at this title. Contrast list of films considered the best, where each entry actually has been deemed the best (i.e. #1) by a notable poll. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of novels considered the greatest from last year. TompaDompa (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This exact debate has been had like 10 times about List of films considered the best, I don't see why the same reasonings wouldn't apply to books.★Trekker (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they were constructed the same way, I would agree. But they are not, they are constructed in completely different ways as outlined above. TompaDompa (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me that seems like a good argument for why this article needs major changes, not deletion, unless we're talking a DYNAMITE case.★Trekker (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, maybe. But if we want a list of the same kind as List of films considered the best, we need new sources as only one out of five none (see below) of the sources used to construct List of books considered the best is a ranked poll. Time's List of the 100 Best Novels (1) is neither ranked nor a poll, Dick Meyer's 100 Years, 100 Novels, One List (2) is ranked (though The order is essentially silly.) but not a poll, Modern Library 100 Best Novels (3) is a ranked poll ranked but not a poll, The Daily Telegraph's 100 Novels Everyone Should Read (4) is ranked but not a poll, and The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English (5) is neither ranked nor a poll. That would leave us with only a single entry, the rest of the list needing to be scrapped. That is pretty much indistinguishable from starting over from scratch. TompaDompa (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Amended. TompaDompa (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Keep in mind that books are different than films. Due to both the quantity of books produced in relation to films, as well as less need for demonstration of technical expertise in the use of tools, it's a lot harder to find objective criteria for the quality of books. As such, summarizing across secondary sources based on lists of 100 is probably a better tertiary analysis than to pick the top 1 from several secondary sources, when it comes to books.

        While I think Reywas92's plan is possibly the best path forward after AFD, a subtle rename here would solve the issues. List of books considered among the best might work. —siroχo 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        As such, summarizing across secondary sources based on lists of 100 is probably a better tertiary analysis than to pick the top 1 from several secondary sources, when it comes to books. Again, maybe. It's certainly more of an WP:ANALYSIS, and I don't mean that as a positive. And when the sources are mostly not polls but what amounts to opinion pieces, it gets even more dubious—we're back to the issues that led to the previous discussion ending with the article being deleted. Are we suggesting that Lev Grossman (1), Richard Lacayo (1), Robert McCrum (5), Dick Meyer (2), and unnamed Telegraph staff (4) are that authoritative sources on this topic? TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        I just realized that it's worse than I thought. Modern Library 100 Best Novels (3) is not one list but two—one drawn up by the editorial board of Modern Library (with Ulysses at #1) and one with 217,520 votes cast (with Atlas Shrugged at #1)—and the article uses the former (as evidenced by Sons and Lovers being noted in the article as appearing on the list when it only appears on the board's list). So we actually have 0 ranked polls in use here, not 1. And I suppose we'll add unnamed people at the editorial board of Modern Library (named by The New York Times here: Christopher Cerf, Gore Vidal, Daniel J. Boorstin, Shelby Foote, Vartan Gregorian, A. S. Byatt, Edmund Morris, John Richardson, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and William Styron) to the list of sources we are apparently saying are sufficiently authoritative to base this list on. TompaDompa (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Amended. TompaDompa (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Just to be clear regarding my thoughts, I don't mean original research, perhaps "tertiary analysis" is borrowing the wrong turn of phrase from the wrong discipline, I hope it's clear that I don't mean all-caps WP:ANALYSIS. By "tertiary analysis" what I mean is summarizing and consolidating secondary sources. —siroχo 01:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        I figured you didn't mean it that way, but I think it qualifies. This article is not really summarizing sources on which books are the best (even disregarding the difference between novels and books), it's taking a handful of opinions, cross-referencing them, and listing the overlap as though it were some kind of critical consensus. The underlying method could conceivably be used to construct a list that meaningfully reflects the overall consensus, but it would require a way larger number of sources, a way more representative set of sources (the WP:Systemic bias on display here isn't exactly subtle: four out of five are explicitly limited to English-language works, the sole exception being the list by The Telegraph (4)—which isn't even a list of the 100 best but 100 "everyone should read"), and some robust statistical analysis—and then you are way into WP:Original research territory. TompaDompa (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If kept, tag with {{globalize}}, as this is a List of English-languageb ooks considered the best by English readers. Such a list would look different if we added input from French, German, Chinese, Japanese and so on sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I did not mean for this to be an advertisement of certain books. I was merely trying to create a page for novels in the vein of List of games considered the best which uses critical consensus instead of one persons opinion. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and rename List of novels considered among the 100 best. There is no single "best", just top 100, but they are considered as a group, satisfying NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be factual, it is a List of novels on "100 best books" lists. Lamona (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article for Modern Library 100 Best Novels states at the beginning "Modern Library's 100 Best Novels is a 1998 list of the best English-language novels published during the 20th century, as selected by Modern Library from among 400 novels published by Random House, which owns Modern Library." So that's not independent. A publishing company tells you that the best 100 books you should buy are all published by them. Anyway, this list is pointless. Just listing which potentially bias sources put something on their top 100 book list, has no purpose here. To make content to publish, someone was told to make a list of 100 books, and they most likely never read most of them themselves, just looked up information elsewhere. Dream Focus 18:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and rename to List of English novels considered the best. The lists include only novels and only those in English. The title should accurately reflect that. Longhornsg (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you updated it and added years up to "2015". Should we consider it a list limited to those specific years? ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:16, 29 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!} 23:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just create lists for each individual poll if they're that notable, we don't really need a weird SYNTH-y page that arbitrarily chooses five polls to decide its entries. AryKun (talk) 15:18, 2 September 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!} 03:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pidge (company)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The subject appears to be a WP:ROTM startup and the refs only provide routine coverage. Fundraising rounds of $1 million and $3 million are nowhere close to noteworthiness. Teemu.cod (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Teemu.cod (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Within the article, the sources seem to all by passing mentions or WP:PRIMARY, with the exception of Inc42. My own research did not turn up significant secondary coverage, with the majority of articles appearing to be press releases. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:39, 31 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 00:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Judd[edit]

Bruce Judd (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 seem to pass WP:ARCHITECT or WP:NACADEMIC - lots of apparent significant contributions but I cannot find any secondary sources and the article has no references! The article in it's current form is a resume so would be willing to attempt to clean it up if someone can prove notability. Qcne (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not pass notability guidelines as per nom. Furthermore, article was heavily edited and contributed to by the subject himself. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article was poorly created and articles should have references. Catfurball (talk) 21:31, 1 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dust Racing 2D[edit]

Dust Racing 2D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested WP:PROD. Fails WP:GNG. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This game does not have enough coverage from reliable sources to get an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete for lack of sourcing. Plenty of hits in a German site called Computer Bild, rest are blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This subject does not meet any notability guidelines. User:Let'srun 01:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; quite literally nothing here and there's eight year old maintenance tags as well. Search engine pulls up no sources. This article must be sent to the cemetery. NegativeMP1 (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found 3 reviews for it, Linux Voice, Linux Format, and the official Softpedia review that's already cited in the article. With these, it certainly passes GNG. Deletion rescue man, away! ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was almost ready to withdraw, but our own article says that "the editorial staff of the Linux Voice came entirely from the UK magazine Linux Format." They, therefore, don't appear to have been sufficiently independent of each other. Charcoal feather (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ehh... they are separate reviews, in separate magazines, years apart. One was written by Ben Everard, while the other was written by Mike Saunders. I am unconvinced they are related enough to disqualify it as SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure of the significance, but if you look at the editorial teams for both magazines, Ben Everard and Mike Saunders were on the editorial staff for both publications. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources found by Zxcvbnm. Timur9008 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are still threadbare in terms of independent commentary on the game; it is not clear to me that this game has notability. The Softpedia article has fairly minimal commentary on the game other than that it's "fun", with the rest being a general description commensurate with the site's status as a file hosting website. WP:VG/S seems to have some commentary that it is not a clearly reliable source. I appreciate the help finding the other sources, but I think this falls short. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was harder since it was in Italian, but I found another review in Linux Pro. While the formatting is similar as Linux Format, so I assume there is some relation, it's indeed a completely different review by a different person appearing years later. Therefore I think it would qualify as a separate publication for the sake of SIGCOV, especially because it's for a different country. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 18 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!} 22:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources found by Zxcvbnm; solid work, I didn't even think to check the Internet Archive! Anyway, I think the reviews are decent enough to pass as secondary coverage. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per new sources. Bobherry Talk My Edits 01:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still No consensus regarding sources mentioned in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 30 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 Regions of Europe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southwestern Europe[edit]

Southwestern Europe (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:OR/WP:SYNTH, fails WP:GNG. Same as with Northwestern Europe, now under AfD as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern Europe. Necrothesp deprodded my prod, saying: "may well be non-notable, but still needs to go to AfD", so here it is. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw Are you bundling these two nominations? If not, that may be advisable :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 16:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Actualcpscm I thought about it, and I decided not to. Southwestern Europe is a stub with very little text, and very little editing history, and zero talk page discussion. Northwestern Europe used to be quite a large article, with lots of references (which turned out to be WP:SYNTHed when I checked them one by one), and there has been quite some Talk:Northwestern Europe. I therefore believe the latter to be more complicated than the former, and would rather discuss them in parallel than together. But I appreciate the suggestion. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks for elaborating :) Some people are unaware that BUNDLE exists, so I wanted to point it out just in case. I‘ll take a look at the articles later. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've used bundles in the past, but when the articles are not similar enough, we tend to get a complicated discussion that focusses on the issues with 1 article, and that can lead a whole bunch of editors to reject the bundle as a whole just because I included that 1 article in it. Then you need to do the whole thing over again by excluding that 1 article, or still nominating them separately. Sometimes people also don't see that I've nominated other articles, so they !vote only on the article highlighted and linked to in the AfD title. So in one case I boldened the co-nominees, but that had its own problems. Just not practical. For CFD it's different, but for AFD I rather not bundle anything. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Regions of Europe. In the subregions section, "South-western Europe" is piped to link to Iberian Peninsula with the map showing the same; not sure if that needs to be changed, but it's not clear that this is a widely used term with consistently recognized meaning that needs a separate article. One can make directional references to any place with one's own definition, but without more established meaning or discussion than pointing out the obvious of what "southwest" and "europe" mean, I don't see the need for this. Reywas92^Talk 17:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andorra, France, Italy, Malta, Portugal, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Iberian Peninsula.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that the article claims that the term refers to far more than the Iberian Peninsula. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Regions of Europe. I agree that this probably isn't a suitable topic for an article. The term "Southwestern Europe" is used flexibly and inconsistently in the academic literature (as far as I can tell), and it's not really a subject that is analysed directly. I would strongly oppose a redirect to Iberian Peninsula. It would be much better for a reader who searches for "Southwestern Europe" to be redirected to Regions of Europe; they may mean a part of France, for example. The purpose of a redirect is to help readers navigate the encyclopedia, not necessarily to direct them to the closest match available. From WP:REDIRECT: Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read, which in this case is not necessarily "Iberian peninsula". Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 18:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Southern Europe. Southern Europe includes Iberia, Malta and "the countries of the boot" and discusses if and to what extend France and Monaco are part of Southern Europe (important: NOT by the UN subcontinents that we use as the WP standard). However you turn it, Southwestern Europe is a sub-region of Southern Europe, i.e., Southwestern Europe (please make sure you sit tight!) is really West-Southern Europe! I could not find SIGCOV in regional geography proper (i.e., beyond the selection of a region for analysis in systematic geography) but found much more than sufficient material for a redirect. Now before someone asks me if systematic geography isn't superior to regional geography (thanks for asking!): usually very much so, but Southwestern Europe IS a regional geography, so this falls under the rest. Regional geography is the folksiest geography and plays a crucial role in socialization, and the accumulation, organization, and dissemination of human knowledge. gidonb (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That‘s a redirect I can get behind. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have three different Redirect target articles suggested. Relisting to see if we can get opinion to settle on ONE of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This might have been complicated by Northwestern Europe, which actually was kept. There are over 4000 results for "Southwestern Europe" on ProQuest. Looking at the article for Northwestern Europe, I am pretty sure a similar level of material and reference coverage would be possible for this subject. - Indefensible (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the cases are similar, it does not replace due diligence. I used consistent methodology from the relevant scientific domain and concluded that one article needs to be kept and the other merged into Southern Europe. Regions of Europe is for outgoing links on regions. Only a LAST resort for incoming links. Iberian Peninsula is US-centric in the sense that it limits to the CIA division of Europe and doesn't allow to discuss all possible definitions. Southwestern Europe is already built into the Southern Europe article! gidonb (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same comment as the first relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer not to give an arbitrary term as "southwestern Europe" any legitimacy, even through a redirect, so I prefer outright deletion. If we really do need to redirect it anywhere (for which I see no necessity), then Regions of Europe is the least worst option. It would be better than a no consensus close. NLeeuw (talk) 22:54, 2 September 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!} 23:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ballantine[edit]

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

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

Contested prod with no effort to demonstrate sourcing. Only source in article is primary. WP:BEFORE finds no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Obvious failure of WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG IceBergYYC (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. IceBergYYC (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable sportsman; fails GNG! Couldn't find reliable sources supporting notability. Ekdalian (talk) 14:51, 4 September 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!} 23:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White Oaks Mall (London, Ontario)[edit]

White Oaks Mall (London, Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is about a small shopping mall, that has had the "needs additional citations for verification" tag since 2014. History6042 (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it gets a lot of local routine coverage in CTV News London. But fails WP:CORP as per WP:SIRS. LibStar (talk) 10:39, 31 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!} 21:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon E. Hines[edit]

Gordon E. Hines (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)

Created by COI user with barely any sources, let alone RSes coming up on a BEFORE. The only materials of interest seems to be a self-published book on the company his cousin founded and an obit in semi-read local newspaper. – Isochrone (T) 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Isochrone (T) 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and I could also find no significant coverage. Sgubaldo (talk) 06:46, 1 September 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!} 21:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Lion[edit]

Teddy Lion (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)

Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV, and I don't think subject is notable. Article has been orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Croatia, and North Macedonia. PepperBeast (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found a few passing references to Vasilev but even in the Croatian/European sources I can find, absolutely nothing in-depth. No evidence of notability via WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:01, 5 September 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 United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Koach[edit]

Koach (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)

Propose deletion or merging into United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the parent organization. Non-notable arm of a larger movement, has been defunct for 10 years, with no WP:SIGCOV that would justify a stand alone article. I did a WP:BEFORE, finding no WP:RS of import not about the organization's closure. Similar rationale as the recently closed merge proposal for Koach's sister organization in the Reform movement. Longhornsg (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Judaism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - with United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the project that created it. KOACH was discontinued 10 years ago. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / Redirect to United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. It's not the age of the organization or the year it closed, it's the fact that there seems to be little in-depth independent coverage of Koach that would merit a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 31 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. with an inadequate deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zubaan Books[edit]

Zubaan Books (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 page obviously looks like a promotional page. It's not a an article shall be created for a publishing company for it's general publications. In that case, every book publishing company and NGO on the globe shall have its own page. There are lots of feminist publishing houses and this happened to be the first. The parent company page already exists, then why do we have a different page for this. Thewikizoomer (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete There is one good source, one so-so given in the article as it stands now (both green per sourcebot). I can only find evidence that they exist (book reviews for books they've published, list of books by them at various book fairs in India). One more decent source, it would be a keep. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Live Mint seems to be better than the Hindu source, both in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sigcov already in the page and this article in The Punch. I also don't appreciate the nominator threatening me with administrative action for deprodding this article earlier. pburka (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s really inappropriate. Closing admin see: diff 1, diff 2

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This publisher meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A search for their name in Wikipedia Library returns 196 hits in magazines and journals. In addition, I found media coverage of the press in Scroll.in (link), Outlook India (link), The Punch Magazine, Ananke Magazine, Paper Planes, Frontlist, and other places. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - lots of refs and notable. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability per above. Also note to the nominator, pleass note that WP:WHATABOUT is not a good reason to nominate an article for deletion. Raladic (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:06, 6 September 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. partially due to the lack of complete deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fearless Collective[edit]

The Fearless Collective (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 SIGNIFICANCE Thewikizoomer (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As I stated when I decided the Fearless Collective article was not eligible for speedy delete, there are plenty of reliable sources that prove the notability of this artist collective. In addition to the reliable sources already in the article, a quick Google News search returns 616 results including coverage of this group in the Kashmir Observer, The Daily Star (link), Homegrown, The Sunday Times (link), News9Live (link), The New Indian Express (link), The Express Tribune (link), Business Standard (link), and many more not listed here. And in addition to that the Wikipedia Library returns even more articles about this group in journals and magazines such as Bitch Magazine, Development, Women's Studies in Communication, The Journal of Women in Culture & Society, and more. While this article does need a lot of work, the Fearless Collective easily meet Wikipedia's notability standards.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the large number of good refs. Consider “speedy keeping”.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:54, 31 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!} 19:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Strickland (actor)[edit]

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

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

Michael Strickland (actor)

This stub biography of a living person has no reliable sources, only IMDB. The stub does not speak for itself because it neither identifies multiple major roles, as required for acting notability guidelines, nor refers to significant coverage in multiple sources, as required for general notability. There is one television role listed, about which List of Sunset Beach characters says: Brad Niklaus never had much of a story on this show.. This stub has existed since 2007, and has never had any reliable sources, and has been tagged since 2019 as needing reliable sources. The Heymann criterion is to add two reliable sources within seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and California. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The comment about Brad is an unsourced opinion and shouldn't be taken into account, but subject nonetheless fails general notability as his only other roles are seven one-time bit parts, and he has been inactive since 2008. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:08, 31 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!} 19:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Komba Malukutila[edit]

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

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

Article about a non-notable business executive. Doesn't meet our WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Sources are but trivial mentions of the subject, maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Africa. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTLINKEDIN, this is a relatively standard professional profile. —siroχo 20:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 30 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 Speedy keep Thank you all for your input, especially the scholarly sources provided by Kung Fu Man. I realize that I misjudged the extent of sourcing, and will try to improve for next time. Nomination withdrawn. The Night Watch (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

List of Undertale and Deltarune characters[edit]

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

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

Largely unsourced WP:GAMECRUFT (under criteria 6), and likely does not meet WP:NLIST due to a lack of extensive critical attention towards the characters as a group. There are brief mentions in reviews praising how the characters were written, but nothing substantial enough for a full list when a significant amount of them have no sourcing. I did some searching around online and found that many of the characters lack any significant material on their creation and reception. Even if it is found that the characters are notable as a whole, the article is still largely unsourced and needs to be rewritten. The Night Watch (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. The Night Watch (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not really sure where the whole "needs rewriting" thing comes from - MOS:PLOT states that "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations". I feel there is a misunderstanding of what exactly requires sourcing and what doesn't. The page could stand to be expanded with more context, but it's not so barren of sources to fall under GAMECRUFT. Obviously, people are welcome to add more context, I just wanted to start a page for what (has been raised in numerous deletion discussions) is a very clearly notable cast of characters that has been discussed as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Didn't this list get started like within the month? Honestly, kind of surprised this got put into AfD so soon. Conyo14 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the bigger issue is that it's 99% regurgitated plot points and 1% out-of-universe commentary. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why you're quoting MOS:PLOT when this is a list of characters that should include information on their conception, design, and reception and not just a plot summary. Although there are elements of the plot that could be included on the page and do not require inline citations, the article and its characters are excessively based upon said plot sourcing and there is still not an adequate amount of material that I could find on the game's characters as a whole. Just mentions in reviews all basically saying that the characters were "all well written and very unique" is not enough material to satisfy NLIST, because there is no other significant material to work with. If several scholarly sources discussing the characters of Undertale and Deltarune does come up, that would be enough to satisfy NLIST. But at the moment, I'm just not seeing it. The Night Watch (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I added some sources that would hopefully address the issue, though I am all but certain there's more out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but give the page time to improve. I agree with User:Zxcvbnm — it's "a very clearly notable cast of characters that has been discussed as a group"; it's just that this list page is quite new (it's literally only about a month old) and needs a little bit of time to expand its bibliography and descriptions (instead of being insta-deleted). Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'll be honest, I'm slightly iffy about the Deltarune half of the article. But Undertale's end has several papers with multiple citations discussing them on Google Scholar here. And that's coming from looking at the papers themselves. I will openly state these sources should have been worked in *before* the article was pushed out like this, but at the same time there's at least clear discussion too and the Sans (Undertale) AfD clearly demonstrated there is interest in a list of characters for this game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:20, 31 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 Video games. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: At least for the time being. The sources, while far from ideal, are at the very least adequate to meet the GNG, and the article is new. As such I would wait at least a short while to allow its improvement, before saying it needs to be deleted. If it is ultimately deemed to be unsatisfactory for mainspace and does not see any significant improvement before this AfD ends, it should be draftified, rather than deleted, and permitted to be recreated at a later date. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This article was made fairly recently and many sources have been found on the subject. It should have time to improve before it's put up for deletion. Pokelego999 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Characters of X are routinely permitted when X is a notable media franchise with, well, characters. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator keep I can't say I understand the rationale behind the nomination, as it suggests that plot summary needs to be sourced when, by Wikipedia policy, it does not. And if it wasn't clear before, it is quite obvious now that sources do discuss the characters both individually and as a group, making the rationale that it does not pass WP:LISTN soundly refuted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:11, 31 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!} 19:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Zulu[edit]

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

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

Article about a non-notable business person. Apart from being the CEO of a recognized bank, they're no WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Sources are mostly Trivial mentions on the subject or regular PR announcement of his appointment as CEO. Does not meet our WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Africa. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a relatively standard professional profile, and WP:NOTLINKEDIN. The main depth in the article is entirely about awards received by a business, notability of the subject is not established. If sources are found, this article requires TNT. —siroχo 22:45, 30 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. Hopefully, sources can be added to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

En pièces détachées[edit]

En pièces détachées (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:NSONG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and France. UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of references in the corresponding French article at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_pi%C3%A8ces_d%C3%A9tach%C3%A9es Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A Google Books search turns up many paragraphs of coverage in books about Hallyday and French rock. I can also find a number of in-depth contemporary reviews in major newspapers/magazines which suggest notability. Appears to meet WP:NALBUM. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:56, 5 September 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!} 19:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EICASLAB[edit]

EICASLAB (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. No reference seems to pass WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Computing, and Software. UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I could not find any secondary coverage, with the sourcing entirely passing mentions or primary. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could find only a few low-citation works on this in Google Scholar, which seem to be associated with the project developers rather than independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 2 September 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!} 19:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Conference Champions[edit]

Eastern Conference Champions (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:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, California, and Pennsylvania. UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:MUSIC; there are a substantial number of independent sources out there, e.g., [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Chubbles (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Paste Magazine, IGN, AllMusic bio as shown above. Also found an AllMusic album review here. Overall there is enough for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 31 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 Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Epanga[edit]

Rachelle Epanga (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 Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least two caps for the DR Congo women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. JTtheOG (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is the 135th women's footballer article nominated for AfD by this user in the 41 days since the start of the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup on 20 July 2023, accounting for 95.7% of their AfD nominations in that span. At this rate of approximately 3.3 articles nominated per day, a user could nominate every international women's footballer article currently on Wikipedia in approximately 7 years and 4 months. Good luck! -75.164.167.40 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 17:00, 3 September 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 Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merveille Mbemba[edit]

Merveille Mbemba (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 Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the DR Congo women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. JTtheOG (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 16:59, 3 September 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!} 19:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Elizah[edit]

Elizabeth Elizah (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 earned at least one cap for the Papua New Guinea women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:58, 3 September 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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belma Sabotic[edit]

Belma Sabotic (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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned three caps for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 16:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Christensen (American football)[edit]

Erik Christensen (American football) (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. The page currently has two sources, one a database and one an obituary clearly not independent. Looking for sources shows a passing mentions here [15] but no significant coverage. This [16] is presumably someone else with the same name. WP:NSPORT has no specific guidance on American football, so WP:BASIC applies. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. I would rate these as the top three: (1) (part 1/part 2), (2) this, and (3) this. Also lots of further coverage with varying levels of depth, including (4) this, (5) this, (6) this, (7) this, (8) this, (9) this, (10) this, and (11) this. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That works. Thank you for your efforts; I'll close the nomination. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:GNG per Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The coverage cited above establishes that the notability standard is satisfied, with kudos to Cbl62. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 31 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 Bit.Trip. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Video[edit]

Commander Video (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, 2 sourced article. Fails WP:GNG. Summerslam2022 (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sure what this was... Gnews only brings up Boko Haram and stuff about a new pet at the White House. Odd. Nothing for GNG Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bit.Trip - The attempted viral marketing campaign that this article is about is not notable at all. But, as "Commander Video" is the name of the main character of the notable "Bit.Trip" series of games, this should be redirected there as a plausible search term. Given the timing of when this article was created, the state of it when it was first created, and the fact that it was created by an WP:SPA, I honestly would not be surprised if this article was initially created as part of the attempted viral marketing campaign. Rorshacma (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Advertising. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bit.Trip - not sure this is a major enough character, or ARG, for an article. However, it is a believable search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bit.Trip. Definitely a likely search term as the two topics of Commander Video and Bit.Trip go hand-in-hand as the mascot of the franchise respectively. Commander Video has also appeared in other media as a stand-in representing Bit.Trip so a redirect would be logical here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bit.Trip per previous replies. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 21:12, 4 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UCL University Preparatory Certificate[edit]

UCL University Preparatory Certificate (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, a WP:BEFORE search turned up only primary sources, database sources and unreliable sources. Also sourced entirely to primary sources so even if notable probably would be best to WP:TNT Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article has existed since 2011, but at no time has it had refs other than UCL. If there are references that can support notability, best path might be to copy the content to offline, let it be deleted, and then start fresh, restoring only that content that can be supported by independent, reliable source references (see WP:42). David notMD (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there may be some mileage for an article on the general concept of these preparatory courses, as UCL are not the only people in the business. We already have INTO University Partnerships, which is about a commercial organisation that partners with universities to provide what I think is a similar service. Elemimele (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The general article for these is Foundation Programme. This is currently a rather short article but could be expanded. Robminchin (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That article is currently talking about a totally different course. It's a highly problematic title as there are Foundation Programmes for almost everything, at every level. You're right it could be generalised, but it runs the risk of becoming too general or turning into a dictionary definition. Elemimele (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (COI as alumni); fails WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:59, 30 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. Procedural Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvin Lo (businessman) (2nd nomination) just closed at the beginning of August and I doubt that much has changed in the past few weeks. Also, the accusatory nomination statement didn't help. I recommend that the nominator move on, at least for a few months. Maybe even help improve the article, huh? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Lo[edit]

Calvin Lo (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)

Calvin Lo has been blocked multiple times on Wikipedia for undisclosed paid abuse, finally an extended user:Cunard creates his page by Calvin Lo (businessman) to bypass this block. Except Forbes staff article, all news articles on internet have a clear COI, published without any research (Now removed from his page). LO doesn't qualifies for a Wikipedia page with just one news reference and really his scam to be a billionaire is not enough. I am sure, a lot of (his) paid editors will jump-in with a KEEP vote, lets UNKEEP them and delete this spam page. All around news is just about Fake announcements for buying F1 and other things. Simple, lets keep Wikipedia clean and ask Cunard why he created page by title Calvin Lo (businessman) instead of Calvin Lo? Fishgrail2 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an attack AfD directed at Cunard A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard did not edit this article; he just moved the existing article to a different title.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}, A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fishgrail2, you appear to have misread the article history. Cunard did not create the article. Please redact those portions of your nomination statement that imply Cunard did anything Cundard did not do. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No, he's notable. Appears to not be what the article claims he is/glosses over it. He's apparently tried to fudge his way onto a billionaire's list, for example [17]. Article given here has a brief mention, but I think he's more notable as an, um, "Forbes list enthusiast" and his attempts get on the list, then for anything else. I won't wade into the discussion of how rich or not rich he is or pretends to be, but there's a story here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Hong Kong, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and procedural close; this article has already been closed as keep in 2 AFDs earlier this year, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Calvin_Lo_(businessman)_(2nd_nomination) which closed earlier this month. - Indefensible (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Indefensible’s comment and in reaction to the troubled nomination statement above. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:30, 30 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero world government[edit]

Zero world government (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 result of the previous AfD for this article was to merge relevant information into the article on governance without government. I have now done so, but still feel like the "Zero world government" article (now a redirect) should be deleted.

As before, Google Scholar only turns up 3 results on the term "zero world government", all of which only define the term in passing and which are almost identical to each other.[18] These theses were all written years after this article was created, so it's possible that this was a neologism created on Wikipedia. Its recent association with "governance without government" also seems to be entirely synthetic, only recently having been added to the article.[19]

Per all this, I don't think merging and redirecting was sufficient, as the concept still lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and has no clear connection with its redirect target. As such, I still think the article should be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Grnrchst (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like a failed attempt at creating a redirect. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AryKun (talk) 15:27, 2 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Specials[edit]

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

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

Article is an WP:OR violating abomination. Unrelated ITV programmes are lumped together under a "ITV specials" banner that doesn't exist. The subject as a group fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing found about the topic as a group, except the usual databases and sites that mirror Wikipedia. Article has extremely poor sourcing, with almost all sources to a single special. List is too long to navigate easily; might be ok as a category but not like this. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am not seeing anything to suggest that what is included here is ever routinely grouped together. Dunarc (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't think this is a banner, branding, or grouping that is actually used by anybody, much less ITV itself. (It also arbitrarily suggests that there were no specials of any kind on ITV before 2000, which is highly unlikely—if not outright inaccurate—for a network that has existed since 1955.) On top of that, is there any real reason why the six main "types" or "series" of music specials aired on ITV are only listed here, and not in the list of television programmes broadcast by ITV? WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 3 September 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!} 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freda Ayisi[edit]

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

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

Was deleted back in 2020 for failing N:FOOTBALL and WP:GNG. She still fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage on her. Dougal18 (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Ghana. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets GNG and SPORTBASIC with significant coverage in the Islington Gazette and Athletic sources. gobonobo ^{+ c} 07:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Athletic article has few sentences specifically on Ayisi and heavily pads the article with quotes from her/stuff that has nothing to do with her. Dougal18 (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 16:55, 3 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Nintendo characters[edit]

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

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

This is a rather bizarre relic from an earlier time in Wikipedia's life, but I feel it's outlived it's lifespan. While at one time the list of, well, lists was far more expansive, things have gradually cut down over time. Additionally we also have categories and an organized template that provide the exact same function. It also ends up a weird outlier: we don't do this for any other franchise (for example there's not a Lists of Square Enix characters)

I don't see sunsetting this as a controversial take. Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: To better clarify, my argument is the list itself is so out of the way while at the same time specialized, that it doesn't work as either a navigation directory or disambiguation unlike other List of Lists articles, and instead add another layer of bookkeeping it has clearly failed at given how out of date it is at the time of this AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list does not serve a good navigational purpose or meet LISTN. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have realized that there is a navigational purpose for this list. Keep. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems like a valid navigational list for characters from Nintendo franchises. OTHERSTUFF(doesn't)EXIST is not an argument for the deletion of a page, and I feel like a list of lists for Square Enix characters wouldn't be a bad idea either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Over the template that's on each of those pages though Zx? I mean keep in mind I didn't notice this list even existed until I started working on character lists. It's a bit out of sight, out of mind. And not even up to date.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, lists and templates can exist alongside each other. One does not remove the need for the other. You can't search for a template. Lists of lists are a standard thing, nothing to see here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per criterion 3: no accurate deletion rationale presented. See WP:Lists of lists. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appears to be a pretty valid "List of Lists" for navigational purposes. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's long enough that I feel it's useful for navigational purposes, coexisting with the template already on some of those pages - especially since some of the lists aren't on that template but are in the list of lists article (such as Characters of Fire Emblem Fates and the lists for Pokemon characters in every generation [instead of just in the series as a whole]). Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Suntooooth: yeah I fixed it up after this clearly seemed to be snowballing. I can't withdraw but I figured if it was going to stick around may as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Perfectly valid navigation list. Dream Focus 20:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreeing with editors on this list of lists, but mainly with Jclemens in that the nom didn't provide proper rationale. My guess is that it's WP:NLIST? Regardless, it provides useful navigation to the many lists of Nintendo-centric characters. Conyo14 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this appears to be a useful list of lists. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:32, 2 September 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 12:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Center for Urban Life and Culture[edit]

Chicago Center for Urban Life and Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Article doesn't appear to ever have been referenced, and I can't find any in-depth, secondary coverage in reliable sources, or verification of the awards claimed, just passing mentions, and entries on university websites and non-profit listings. Article created by a single-purpose account with an apparent conflict of interest. Wikishovel (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Illinois. Wikishovel (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete This is all I see [20], a brief mention. Oaktree b (talk) 17:25, 30 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 Animal Crossing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Villager (Animal Crossing)[edit]

Villager (Animal Crossing) (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 relies entirely on short quips and list entries, primarily due to their role in Super Smash Bros.. WP:BEFORE proved fruitless also, with a few articles like Kotaku's but the vast majority of any discussion of the character being brief or mainly towards the games themselves, and not about the character itself. Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no "character" to discuss here. Villager's visual design is customizeable and he/she has no personality. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Super Smash Bros characters. I don't think there's enough here to justify a separate article, especially given that the Villagers aren't really characters outside of Smash, and there doesn't seem to be significant commentary on them in regards to the Animal Crossing series. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would almost certainly be better to redirect to the Animal Crossing series article or something. Yes, they're essentially clean slate silent protagonist type character, but you can glean more understanding about the character through its original game than you can its fighting crossover game... Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting there, but given most if not all of the Villager's significant coverage is based around Smash, it seems like it would be logical to send people there. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's dwarfed by the amount of coverage it gets on the context of the Animal Crossing games, which is fine considering we're just talking about a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, I'm unopposed to a redirect to Animal Crossing should that be the groups consensus, I just personally feel the Smash character list works best. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Smash Bros. character list does not actually provide any commentary about the characters. Discussion about Villager, its conception/design/reception if anywhere, should be at the Animal Crossing series page and not the Smash character list. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article has a few good sources about their appearance in Super Smash Bros.. I do not think there needs to be a dedicated "character" to be notable, especially with other coverage. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:ITSNOTABLE. You haven't cited anything or provided any evidence that supports what you're saying. You need to say something of substance or the closing admin will just ignore your stance. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not mention them by name because they are already in the article. Sources such as 21, 20, 12, and 16 discuss the character in detail. (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Super Smash Bros. characters So far there has been vaguely pointing at trivial sources but nothing decisive. The Villager has no personality as a character to speak of, so it's even more of an uphill battle for notability. I am of a mind to say that it fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't Animal Crossing be a better target? Someone wanting to read about Villager would certainly get more (or should get more, in a perfect world) from the series article than the Smash character list that has no information. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 03:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The MC in Animal Crossing isn't even referred to as "villager" at all. They only are dubbed that in Smash so it feels like logically it ought to redirect there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you suggesting? That the main character from other versions, like the GameCube version is a different character? What in the world are you getting at here? Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no need to be so harsh, I am just stating my opinion about the naming without necessarily saying that it must be true. However, at least in the Animal Crossing games I played, the NPCs all refer to you as mayor, not villager, as you are instated as the mayor of the town. If I was searching for "Animal Crossing villager" outside of a Smash context, I'd be looking for the animals, not the main character. Therefore, I feel it would be a strange redirect, though it could potentially apply to both. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All Animal Crossing games have a customizable avatar that the player names. "Villager" is just a name assigned in Smash Bros to an otherwise unnamed avatar. Sorry, I figured this to be obvious to anyone knowledgeable of both series. Sergecross73 msg me 00:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, in order to settle this I am fine with it just going to Villager#Fictional characters. Both the Smash character and the AC character(s) can be mentioned there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Animal Crossing. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for sure, for a general lack of independent notability outside of the scope of any of the games the character is present in. That said, I also don't want this to default into a "no consensus" close if there's no agreement on the redirect target. I think it redirecting somewhere is the most important thing. But that aside, personally, I feel pretty strongly about it redirecting to the Animal Crossing series page. There's way more room to expand the info and context of the subject there than there is at the other proposed targets, which are lists or dab pages. Beyond that, when choosing redirect targets, I really don't think it ever makes sense to chose a "cross over" it was in over its original source material when both are notable and mainstream, as they are here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 5 September 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. Numerically divided, but the provided sources have not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khutbat-e-madras[edit]

Khutbat-e-madras (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 to fulfill WP:NB.–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 08:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• unsure - I don't read Urdu/Arabic but it seems some scholars hold this in high esteem, no? For example 1 JMWt (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to author, Sulaiman Nadvi. No need to delete this outright. -- asilvering (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a pretty much notable book, and is subject of books, for instance, this 1978 work, consider this more than a paragraph, this as well - and I believe there is more. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:SUSTAINED. The book is of sufficient esteem and merit to be the subject of a fresh 2017 translation and revision into English, demonstrating the sustained notability of the work over time. The work is also widely cited on Google Books. Muslimnews International, in its 1970 volume 9, page 11, called it a "celebrated" work - again evidence of sustained interest over the intervening decades, now tallying up to nearly a century. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:48, 1 September 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 Withdraw. User:Tintor2 impressively found some usable sources, including scholars. I was wrong at the end. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luke fon Fabre[edit]

Luke fon Fabre (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)

Like Yuri Lowell, this article's reception were also filled with passing mentions from the game reviews. Having hard time to find more per WP:BEFORE. Zero WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 07:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - for what it's worth, it survived merge discussions in 2014. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that time where the standards isn't high yet. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added some sources primarily focused around him.Tintor2 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Zero SIGCOV" is a serious allegation for an article that cites 50-odd sources. Are you willing to do a source analysis to prove this point? Just at a glance, I see multiple published books cited in the ref list. Per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material so mentions within reviews may be significant or not significant but that would be revealed by a detailed source review. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:57, 31 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 draftify‎. Nominally no consensus between draftify and deletion, but there's a fairly clear consensus that the current sourcing does not establish notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayo Vincent[edit]

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

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

Article about a gospel singer and music director that does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:SIGCOV. A whole list of non-notable awards and non-rs from the church website. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Jamiebuba, Do you find issue with the Business Day article? Although many of the sources do not provide significant coverage, this single source provides a lot of the information for the article (to its own detriment, for sure, as there are some copyvio issues, though that can be addressed). Significa liberdade (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the copy edit issues of this article has now been fully addressed, given the guardians and help from @Significa liberdade the article shouldn't need any further edits for now, as previously suggested edits from editors after the moving of the article to main space sort of changed the entire context of the article, deleting citations and this was not meant to be. This article was rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale before it was moved to main space. I believe further contribution to the article was that they were trying to make the article better and I honestly thank them for their effort however it almost didn't make the article make any more sense. I have been able to make the necessary adjustments to the article now, taking from their edits while also addressing the concerns you have raised. I believe it should comply with the Wikipedia standards now as it did before. I would appreciate you give it another look and I would appreciate suggestions in making further improvements to it so that a consensus can be reached in removing the deletion notice tags placed on the article @Jamiebuba. Thanks Samlodias (talk) 15:05, 9 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!} 06:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re: @Significa liberdade: - the Business Day article is a sponsored post. I haven't had a chance to go through every ref, but they do appear to be low-quality. Lean delete for now.-KH-1 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I honestly do not believe so, because in the said Business Day article it was clear that it was talking as regards the latest musical release, which is evident but however, I believe the news platform in their duties, did their due diligence to add a concise biography about the individual, dating from previous track records of the individual in question. I believe other references supports or buttress the information as regards the individual and for that reason, i believe it is an article that can be improved upon rather than being deleted. So, I do kindly solicit that the article shouldn't be deleted but given a room for more information addition and improvements in the Wikipedia space.  Samlodias (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this isn't the same article as the one that was nominated for AFD deletion. Does this make any difference? If not, would draftification be acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Draftification would be fine in its current state. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think draftify is fine. But this cannot remain in article space the way it is. A ~500 word article has 19 references to a ~700 word sponsored post also labeled "advertisement". Just to be clear, that Business Day source is not independent or reliable. I would not even recommend such a source for ABOUTSELF claims, as the ad on the whole is self-serving, but it's also not even clear that the claims are from the subject. If not draftify, delete WP:NOTPROMO —siroχo 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some additional input regarding the current state would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This content is based on news coverage that was either bought and paid for (Business Day), or blatantly promotional (MyBioHub), or self-published (Starting Over: Tolani). It should not be in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 08:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree that the current sourcing does not support an article, and nor can I find anything that does. I'm not sure I see the use in draftifying, but I am not opposed to it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 2 September 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!} 03:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Fern[edit]

Stephen Fern (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)

Multiple sources from this article are about a different Stephen Fern, and seem to be sprinkled in to feign proper BLP sourcing. Not finding enough here to see a pass of WP:GNG, anything that talks about Stephen directly is either an interview, a passing mention, or just a quick blurb about him as a speaker at an event. A WP:BEFORE mostly finds articles about the other Stephen Fern. IceBergYYC (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as nominator Closer inspection reveals that almost none of the included citations even support the text they follow. All instances marked in article.IceBergYYC (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article content is predominantly about Ark2030 and might be better pivoted to be an article about that organisation, consideration of whose notability would fall under WP:ORGDEPTH. ? AllyD (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon reading all sources in the article, and looking for more, there's far from enough to demonstate ORGDEPTH for Ark2030. Basically every source is an identical couple sentences blurb that is likely just their own PR given to conferences where they have speaking arrangements. IceBergYYC (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A numerous work he has done can’t be overemphasized. I can see multiple reliable sources that said much about him. 102.91.4.246 (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC) —102.91.4.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

  Care to link to any of those multiple reliable sources? IceBergYYC (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, even if all those sources were about the guy the article is about, they still would not qualify as reliable. Promotional page. Bremps... 21:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

102.91.4.246

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unsourced mess. I can't see one truly independent reliable source in there that says anything meaningful about Fern. I'm keeping an open mind about Ark2030 which as a British community-interest company has an extremely unconvincing existence; Companies house records merely show that it has shuffled directors and that it's twice been threatened with compulsory strike-off, which is impressive for a mere 3 years of existence. If someone independent writes about it, it'd be an appropriate redirect target for Fern, but at the moment I don't see either of them reaching WP's notability requirements. Elemimele (talk) 13:12, 30 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!} 05:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Lamble[edit]

Jo Lamble (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)

Marked for notability concerns 5 years ago. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Coverage is mainly of her commenting as a psychologist in the media. Rather than WP:SIGCOV of her as the subject. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 23 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!} 04:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Subject also seems to run a question and answer column in Australian newspapers "Clinical psychologist Jo Lamble answers your questions". Not finding any actual coverage right now, but there's a lot to wade through. —siroχo 05:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - being quoted in the media as a subject matter expert is not the same as coverage about the individual that would indicate notability. Not seeing any evidence online that she meets WP:GNG or any other relevant guideline (such as WP:NACADEMIC). —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 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 01:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenery Mello do Nascimento[edit]

Rosenery Mello do Nascimento (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 be non-notable, apart from her involvement in the relatively insignificant 1989 World Cup qualifier (WP:BIO1E), which led her to become somewhat of a celebrity (lots of interviews, appeared on the cover of Playboy, articles covering her death). Mooonswimmer 04:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This subject passes WP:GNG. If there's a sourcing or WP:BLP problem that merits deletion, please specify. I'm not used to !keeping, so convince me. JFHJr (㊟) 04:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'm not asking you to swallow everything on the Portuguese article, but my impression is enough sources are right there even if not every one of them meets our criteria here. I am not saying the sources are "out there" because they are "right there." Em português so what. If you cared enough to AfD, why not spend time reading 30-odd (auto-translated if you need) publications? And still AGF, maybe you'd add the ones you find reliable from pt wiki to this article? But if you'd like WP:NAC instead, I'll help you there. JFHJr (㊟) 05:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems like a borderline case but subject appears to meet for inclusion based on coverage from 1989 World Cup match, the Playboy cover, and obituaries at her death. - Indefensible (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, it's more fame than notability. Per WP:BIO1E:

  It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person.

  Most of the articles appear to cover her mostly in the context of the minor role she played in a (relatively insignificant) event. Mooonswimmer 21:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree the case is borderline, on the other hand the Portuguese article seems to have pretty good coverage. We should generally lean towards inclusion for such cases in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:32, 23 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!} 04:57, 30 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Judge Child[edit]

The Judge Child (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)

Judge Dredd's storyline, a lenghty plot summary with no reception, effectively unreferenced (just three footnotes, all to the comic books). I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 30 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Open to a merge or redirect if any reliable coverage is found at all. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale... As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none. As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen. I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion. Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial. To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is seemingly no SIGCOV on this topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]