Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< January 15 January 17 >

Purge server cache

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. Kudos for the improvements to the article during the discussion. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Grove, Arizona[edit]

Walnut Grove, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Six miles or so north of the Walnut Grove Dam site, there is maybe a schoolhouse and maybe a church. The topos show the school (by name) but do not label a town name until relatively recently. There is also a large cemeterya mile south, and in between, the Gold Bar Ranch, which claims to be in "historic Walnut Grove". Other than that, not getting much. There may be some documentation of an actual town here, but I'm not finding it. Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some hits on Google Books. Ignoring the brand books and several news mentions of the dam, there still may once have been a town there, and it seems to have had a mention with respect to Apache Wars. Will dig deeper in a while. I agree that there does not seem to currently be a settlement there besides perhaps the ranch. The site marked for the school on Google Maps has a 360° pano showing absolutely no buildings, so it too may be historic only. However the pin says the school is "temporarily" closed so I can't rule out the possibility that it has really big grounds. Elinruby (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've done a little bit of adding to show the place as at least previously being a settled place of note -- it actually missed being the territorial capital of Arizona by one vote in 1864.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I cropped it out of the 1903 USGS topo map and added that to the article. Bonus it still shows the location of the dam. jengod (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above it missed being the capital of Arizona by 1 vote and a 1903 UDGS topo map lists it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with recent work, seems like an ok article about a former settlement. Also likely redlink otherwise Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:HEY.Djflem (talk) 21:32, 23 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seymur Nasirov[edit]

Seymur Nasirov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seems to be no indication of notability el.ziade (talkallam) 23:12, 16 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian professional football license[edit]

Belgian professional football license (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no evidence of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Belgium. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources are cited, other than deadlink to Belgian FA website. Meanwhile, this page has been up for so long, many mirrors have copied the content. Found one international comparative study in International Sports Law Review via Wikipedia Library, but it's about the licensing of coaches, not about licences for clubs in Belgium. There could be a section about licensing of clubs on the Royal Belgian Football Association page, but it would have to have sources, which this page does not. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most countries have entry requirements to be in particular leagues, but these are not notable enough for articles about them. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide on how to get football teams into leagues. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Paul Vaurie: Should you not bundled Belgian remunerated football license with this? I was thinking there might be a redirect option. But not seeing that. So will also side with delete. Govvy (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Govvy: I have now also nominated that one too. I felt it was too late to include it as we already had a consensus here. Wouldn't mind if you closed this debate, however (if you want of course, and if you do, thanks). Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I just realized that since you're involved you can't close this. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero sources not counting a lone deadlink WesSirius (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. It's a thing that seems to exist, but it's not a notable thing that warrants a standalone article. While there are some articles on broad-stroke topics like a business license, more niche licenses like this one are not likely to be notable on their own just because of how niche they are, and this article's subject is no exception. - Aoidh (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only way that this would be notable is if a club that literally hated television, money, and fans rejected getting this license, or loves those things and since they can't fit outright to get it, received a waiver to get one (mainly due to field size, seating, or light issues), and even then it's a minor after-season or pre-season note that's usually taken care of ASAP because you want to get into a premier league. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Serratra (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Devokewater 11:27, 22 January 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 14:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League career interceptions leaders[edit]

List of National Football League career interceptions leaders (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:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN. No sources talking about this list - article sourced to exactly one database. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reason to have a page that just repeats what is found on another website.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that what every article does – include information from other sources? Otherwise all articles would be just made up. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I might not be clear--every article is supposed to include information from other sources as you say, but it is from multiple sources. If the wikipedia article just repeats what another single page has, then it is just redundant. But it looks like consensus will swing the other way on this one. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can perhaps see a reason to get rid of the most consecutive pro bowls to start a career, but the interception leaders? That's a major statistic and the record has received coverage, for example [1] [2] [3] [4]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one of those citations actually talks about a list of people (unless I'm missing something). Simply having sources say someone has the most of something doesn't meet LISTN. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep INT's are a major statistic as BeanieFan11 said. I see no reason at all for this list to not exist, especially with other lists with other similar stats existing.-- Yankees10 23:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful list that should be kept. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 00:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Echoing BeanieFan11 and Yankees10. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course, a major stat as is the other major page inexplicably nominated, List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a major stat as others have mentioned. It's one of the two most notable statistics for a defensive player (the other being sacks). There is definite WP:SIGCOV and notability here. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beanie and Josh. Further, and per Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes many features of general and specialized almanacs and gazetteers. Interceptions are one of the two most notable (arguably the top) defensive stat in the sport. A list of the all-time leaders in this important stat furthers Wikipedia´s mission as an almanac and gazeteer. Cbl62 (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most important statistic for cornerbacks and safeties, has substantial coverage as established above.--Newtothisedit (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability is based on all available sources, not just those currently in the article. And interception leaders is a major statistical category with plenty of sources if anyone bothers to look. Rlendog (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:53, 18 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Fereje[edit]

Fuad Fereje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NSOCCER, the relevant notability criterion for this sort of athlete is WP:SPORTCRIT, that is, subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. I've searched online for sources that meet this, and I've found precisely zero; I'm finding a couple of trivial mention his Latin name [5] [6], and I'm plainly not able to find mentions of his Amharic name (ፋዓድ ፈረጃ) in reliable sources; he appears to fail WP:SPORTCRIT. The other potentially relevant notability criteria (WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG) have the same standard of multiple independent reliable sources, so he also appears to fail those criteria.

For these reasons, this article should be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#8, as an article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability criteria of WP:SPORTCRIT/WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Two international FIFA caps, it might be possible there are sources out there for this, Red-tailed has posted a good AfD here and it's hard to refute his nomination. If anyone finds decent sourcing ping me, otherwise I sadly side with delete per policy. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:17, 17 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry (comics)[edit]

Ministry (comics) (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)

Unsourced and tagged for notability for over a decade. No significant coverage revealed by WP:BEFORE search. Jfire (talk) 22:27, 16 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most consecutive Pro Bowl selections by National Football League players to start a career[edit]

List of most consecutive Pro Bowl selections by National Football League players to start a career (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:LISTN as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE grouping of statistics not discussed in reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE nonsense. No sources are talking about this as a group. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's actually very WP:DISCRIMINATE, but that doesn't make the list notable. Looks more like WP:OR to me than anything else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:48, 16 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most consecutive Pro Bowl selections by National Football League players[edit]

List of most consecutive Pro Bowl selections by National Football League players (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:LISTN completely cited to one citation. WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 January 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) - the nominator appears to have withdrawn this nomination by voting "keep" later on in the discussion. No prejudice against a merge being performed or discussed further on talk. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bartholomew and the Bug[edit]

Bartholomew and the Bug (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)

Super Short Feetfeet 341 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this fails GNG Feetfeet 341 (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep [7] barely mentions it, in the grey box at the right. I think with the Kirkus Review, the award and this, it might just be barely enough? Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Feetfeet 341 (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Neal Layton. There is a two-paragraph review in Reading Time. Feb 2005, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p20 (available via The Wikipedia Library). I think the coverage I've seen falls just short of meeting GNG. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:09, 19 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulkareem Jamiu Asuku[edit]

Abdulkareem Jamiu Asuku (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 civil servant, chief of staff to Nigerian governor. Mooonswimmer 21:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable functionary. Mccapra (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I prefer not to remove content from articles during AfD discussion, but had to remove a bunch of copyvio. The plagiarized source, Kogi Reports, definitely has in-depth coverage of Asuku, though I have independence/reliability concerns. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chief of staff and pharmacist isn't notable, I'm not sure how reliable the sources given are either. I only recognize a few from Nigeria as RS, per prior AfD discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sources are questionable in terms of notability and basically just discuss the existence of the person. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 10:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:05, 22 January 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. (leaning Keep). Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StrongDM[edit]

AfDs for this article:
StrongDM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, virtually every source in the article either fails WP:IS or is not SIGCOV. Google News was much of the same. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 21:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I told the nominator that I just published the page and was still working on it. There are all significant sources in the field they are being published in. Most of the ones I used are on the subject of their products and technology. The company has the Global Managing Partner of Sequoia as a board member, Google Ventures, Sequoia, Tiger Global & Bloomberg as investors and until a year ago was a female led tech company that had raised over $76M in funds. It is mentioned a couple times on wikipedia, even as a competitor by a company with a much worse page. The issue seems to be the CEO participates routinely in a lot of articles as an expert and it makes searching google much harder. Any sources that aren't 3rd party quality sources are only used for subjects they would be qualified to cite such as, the change in CEO, i cited the company website. I my opinion, there is a public interest in the company and several articles on competitors cite this company as a top competitor in the field. Plus I am not done with the page so, I would like the opportunity to improve it as I mentioned on the talk a page when it was created. The two competitors listed on the page, which actually mention strongDM on their pages, either use similar sources or are significantly less credibly referenced. They are also less notable with less notable investors. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    '''Speedy Keep''' I am upgrading my vote, has plenty of notability to meet WP:SNG. One of the top in its field, ranked #1 in several listicles, and better referenced than other pages in the same category. Plenty for a new page stub of a company that just raised $54M. If it was years ago and no hope of expansion, I would be on the fence.. but this is tech and mainstream media doesnt cover these categories as much. The jargon and products are just too complicated for monday morning reading before the comics. There are a dozen industry trade references. Happy to hear more on the argument from anyone in the networking, devops or other fields who are familiar with the company. ~~~~ ScienceAdvisor (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Websites, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this meets NCORP. Most of the articles here, except maybe the one in Fortune which I can't access, are about the software, not the company. The remaining ones about the company are routine announcements of funding, which don't support notability. It might be worth thinking about whether the software itself can be shown to be notable. Lamona (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After much work on the article, I am changing my !vote to Keep. The article now covers separately the company and its product(s). There is more work to be done to remove extraneous sources and to better clarify the software offerings, but I think it meets NCORP now. Lamona (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one in Forbes, there are a ton within the DevOps and network security field which you have to sort through from smaller tech sources. If you look at companies is the same categories, it certainly looks like there is somewhat of a lower standard since your average NY Times or LA Times article doesnt mention much on Zero Trust architecture or privileged access management. Enterprise level network security rarely makes that fashion rags if you understand what I mean. I would understand if you would want to take it down at a later date but, at this point they received $54M in venture within the last 12 months, they have a billionaire board member who is the Global Managing Partner of Sequoia and an enviable list of investors. I think there is a public interest from not only a notability standpoint but from a scientific pov. I could be wrong but both looking through "Category:Networking companies" and "Category:Computer security software companies" shows a significantly lower standard than say a reality tv contestant. This is an evolving field and WP:NCORP suggest that a company must make a significant contribution to its field and that is what strongDM has been does. To me if we challenge the notability of this article, then almost every company in these two categories needs to be tagged and voted on. Our goal at wikipedia is to adopt a general standard and provide that standard for every page. Currently, i believe strongdm exceeds the notability requirements and social interest in this field. In 5 years from now, this page may be reviewed, but in this category, the page exceeds the requirements for the fields which it actively participates. I would look at the Forbes, NYPost, softwareengineeringdaily, dzone, ITOpsTimes, intelligentcio and a number of other articles to establish notability. I could add more trades but it seems like reference bombing. Voters will do what they will but, my honest opinion, it would exclusionary to leave this company out of wikipedia without providing the same scrutiny. I think the company meets WP:SNG . I am happy to hear everyones thoughts. Perhaps making this a stub and revisiting it down the road might be an acceptable solution? WP:5P5 should be considered in the overall interest of creating the same standards for every company in the field to be notable. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the company and the software are pretty much the same thing. The company focuses on enterprise security and permission granting across multiple systems. Besides the open source project they created, I believe the company really only offers the one product. I could be wrong but that is my understanding. I just re-read your comment, i apologize. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I see it differently. I know that the names are the same, but we wouldn't consider Microsoft identical to Windows, or Sun identical to Java. I think there is a better chance here of finding supporting resources for the software than the company. It's a matter of emphasis: an article for the software that includes information about the company will have many more good sources, from what I can see. An article about the company that includes information about the software will not have good sources for the company aspect. In the end, the question is: which is more important? My money is on the software. And, btw, the article today is pretty unclear when it switches from one aspect to the other - regardless of the approach, the two things, the company and the software, are logically and semantically different "things." Lamona (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page would have the same name and still be categorized the same. strongDM is the company and the product. Think Netflix. I appreciate the idea, I am certainly open to it but, I just think voting for the software and the company are the same since.. I appreciate the keep vote or suggested amendment . I actually added a stub tag to the page. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the Netflix analogy holds - it's a subscription service for content. I decided to try out separating the company (User:Lamona/sandbox/StrongDM_(Company)) from the software (User:Lamona/sandbox/StrongDM_(Software). These are quite faulty, but it was the only way that I could think about it. In doing so I noticed 1) the language in the article you created is quite promotional, which violates WP:PROMO, and 2) there's serious citation overkill. That latter makes it hard for readers to use the article as an information source. For each fact you need one good reference, occasionally two, but never 3 or 4. I still !vote delete on this article and think an article about the software/platform is more likely to be notable. Lamona (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fine to set them up separately but, I think the articles would be ultimately merged. Similar to Netflix they are buying a portal for enterprise level credential and permission distribution with support. It would be redundant to create pages for both but, I certainly would be open to editing the article closer to either of the versions I saw in your sandbox. I do agree with you about the reference bombing, it was something I mentioned earlier but, trying to show notability in computer networking is challenging. I am curious about what you think about the other companies in these categories, should there be a mass review or a proposed wiki project? I am also curious which part you found promotional? Everything was sourced from the web an seems to contain a complete lack of adjectives. Let me know and I will make an attempt to fix it. To me, deleting the article or WP:TNT seems like a waste of work and overkill. Thanks LMK! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that both should be articles; I did the separation to try to understand what parts of the original article refer to the company and which refer to the software. It could be combined into a single article but the two aspects need to be made clear. It matters because most of the sources say little about the company but a fair amount about the software. In terms of promotional, the uses of "every" and "any" are superlative and do not even come from the cited sources. No product can truly boast of "every" or "any". I have to say that looking at sources 7 and 8 I don't see how those support the sentence they follow. I haven't the time to look at all of the sources (the 'bomb' problem). It would be good if you could reduce the sources to just those that actually support the statements in the article. Lamona (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did cut and paste a description before reworking the sentences in my sandbox. I apologize for the "any" but from what I understand, the company's service does log, all or every, user action and change by recording video. I think that is part of the appeal and what they sell. To be able to go back and see where mistakes were made on the administrative level, issuing permissions and making edits. From what I understand it will work with any database but I certainly see the issues with removing the unnecessary language. I will go through the references this afternoon and try and double check them. Honestly, this was more of a stub when I published it. I didnt see the AfD nomination coming and it has forced me to spend more time on this that I had originally planned. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reorganized the references and removed a bunch of them. Am I wrong to think that we can agree that we can come to some sort of agreement that there is an acceptable page to be published here? I am sure we can work together to come up with something that makes sense. I'd rather have a yes vote with some editing since the voting should be over sometime in the next 24 hours. Let me know what I can do. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really tag for AfD but I think there needs to be a real look at the categories of Networking companies and Category:Computer security software companies to put together a notability standard for the field. Just using the two pages of Teleport and Perimeter 81 as examples, these companies are published with no 3rd party references that indicate notability outside of fundraising. In fact, in both those categories the referencing is atrocious and littered with press releases, lack of significant coverage and proper 3rd party sourcing. This article looks like a peach comparatively! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I think we have come to some sort of compromise. We both got rid of some references, Lamona has been kind enough to restructure the page and do some additional editing. Thanks for all the help! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still looks like most mentions are trivial, funding announcements and the like. Even after the clean up as above, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 16 January 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! 20:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Games of the 2010–11 Elitserien season[edit]

Games of the 2010–11 Elitserien season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of stats. No references. Delete or merge to 2010–11 Elitserien season. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Sweden. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree with the "no references" – every single game has been referenced, with a "Game reference" link by every match. Unfortunately, the pages have since been moved, but the information can easily be referenced by pointing to the new match statistics site. /Julle (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Have added sourcing. /Julle (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Per WP:GNG, "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. You've added a direct primary source. Additionally, there is nothing notable about the results of the games of this season. It's the season itself, that has any notion of notability. There is no "significant coverage" of the results of the games. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For notability purposes, it would of course be possible to go to dig up a news report, game by game, 204 times, and use those. Like this one from Sveriges Radio for the very first game, for example. But this is best understood as a section of 2010–11 Elitserien season, having been split for length reasons, and should be considered in that context, much like e.g. a long separate bibliography in a writer's biography. From the perspective of verifiability, the statistics page suffers from none of the reasons why we avoid primary sources: it's controlled by neither team creating a conflict of interest, so spending days to replace the sources with individual news articles seems to be unnecessarily bureaucratic. /Julle (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why it should be deleted. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Clearly meets WP:AOAL for navigation  // Timothy :: talk  21:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AOAL is not a guideline; it's a set of bullet points stating the advantages of using lists as opposed to categories or navboxes, so there's no merit to that argument. This list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Aidan731: If WP:AOAL is not a guideline, why does it state at the top of the page, This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline.  // Timothy :: talk  15:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally fails WP:LISTPURP since there is no navigation that is not already achieved with 2010–11 Elitserien season. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Again a curious interpretation. Can you point out the passage that supports the above assertion?  // Timothy :: talk  15:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there are still comments being made to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mano (singer)[edit]

Mano (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is almost completely unsourced and the parts which are sourced are done so very poorly. Fails WP:V throughout. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 18:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: He is a very notable singer in India. Needs large clean-up. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Hindu and The Indian Express so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above .Notable Indian singer and it passes WP:GNGPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:09, 22 January 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. There was consensus to delete before the relist, and the only argument since has been rebutted convincingly. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Rashid bin Humaid Al Nuaimi IV[edit]

Sheikh Rashid bin Humaid Al Nuaimi IV (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)

One of the younger sons of Humaid bin Rashid Al Nuaimi III, he is not the crown prince. Notability is not inherited. Lacks significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after reverting my closure after an appeal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - That he's royalty isn't relevant here. As head of the President of the Emirates Football Association, he has plenty of in-depth coverage, such as [8] and [9]. I haven't checked, but as the head of the Municipality and Planning Department in Ajman, I'd also expect coverage. Ping User:GiantSnowman. Also, there's no indication that a BEFORE was done. Nfitz (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A BEFORE most certainly was performed, he was listed to begin with under football to begin with due to his role in the football association, and his role in Ajman's politics is minor, with Ajman being the smallest emirate in the UAE. There is barely any coverage in English. The two Arabic sources you bring are primary, not independent, and not in depth. The first one, [10] in alkhaleej is about a speech by his oldest brother Crown Prince Sheikh Ammar bin Humaid Al Nuaimi which mentions Rashid was present at the event. The second, is a copy of his speech in koora.com saying that the UAE President's Cup is "dear to everyone". --Mvqr (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no relevance to there being English coverage. You misunderstand the criteria. If you didn't do any BEFORE in Arabic, it's a BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But I did check Arabic sources. If there is a failure here, Nfitz, it is you presenting alkhaleej as "in-depth coverage" above whilst it is almost entirely about his oldest brother (the crown prince) and only mentions him as being present at the speech by his brother. --Mvqr (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see the issue. All these similarly named and related Sheikhs. Yes, the notability of that one is not there; I'll strike it. The second though, is certainly not a copy of his speech! Yes, it describes the speech, with some quotes. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, another Arabic tidbit I checked before nominating was the Arabic Wikipedia, which doesn't have an entry on Rashid. I also checked for variant spellings in his father's Arabic page which lists Rashid. On the Arabic Wikipedia there is an entry for his father and oldest brother only, not the younger brothers who hold mid-level administrative positions.--Mvqr (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on Google translate, neither of the sources above are significant. GiantSnowman 19:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, User:GiantSnowman, I messed up with the first one above. There's a lot of other coverage, such as [11] and very in-depth shorter pieces such as [12]. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First source reads like a press release, second is OK but soo short. GiantSnowman 18:48, 23 January 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! 20:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Mohana Bhogaraju[edit]

List of songs recorded by Mohana Bhogaraju (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)

As per most articles written by Abbasulu, this one fails WP:V, WP:NLIST, and WP:SIGCOV. Barely sourced and the ones that are are sourced poorly. One song has 6 sources for no reason I can see other than to try and game people into thinking the article is better sources than it actually is. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:55, 16 January 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! 20:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Mano[edit]

List of songs recorded by Mano (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)

As per most articles written by Abbasulu, this one fails WP:V, WP:NLIST, and WP:SIGCOV. Barely sourced and the ones that are are sourced poorly. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:53, 16 January 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! 20:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telugu songs recorded by Mano[edit]

List of Telugu songs recorded by Mano (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)

As per most articles written by Abbasulu, this one fails both WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Barely sourced and the ones that are are sourced poorly. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main article should probably go to Afd as well. Of the 8 refs, 6 are junk, 2 are interviews. No secondary sourcing. scope_creepTalk 17:59, 16 January 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! 20:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil songs recorded by Mano[edit]

List of Tamil songs recorded by Mano (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)

As per most articles written by Abbasulu, this one fails both WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Barely sourced and the ones that are are sourced poorly. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:50, 16 January 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! 20:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kannada songs recorded by Mano[edit]

List of Kannada songs recorded by Mano (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)

As per most articles written by Abbasulu, this one fails both WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Barely sourced and the ones that are are sourced poorly. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:49, 16 January 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) 20:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Punjabi songs recorded by Runa Laila[edit]

List of Punjabi songs recorded by Runa Laila (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)

As per most articles written by Abbasulu, this one fails both WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Uses Spotify as source and other source is a discogs clone. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:45, 16 January 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) 19:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu songs recorded by Asha Bhosle[edit]

List of Urdu songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (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)

As per most articles written by Abbasulu, this one fails both WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Only sources are discogs. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:44, 16 January 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. This is without a doubt a notable person and that is not a valid deletion rationale. Saving us all the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Santos[edit]

George Santos (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 been the target of criminal investigations and scandals. This could jeopardise his worthiness of having an article on wikipedia. 108.53.232.130 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Even with criminal investigations, individual is an elected member of the US Congress and has received widespread coverage in media sources establishing both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
Epluribusunumyall (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That's, like, not a reason for deletion under WP:DP or WP:BIODEL. He's a very public figure, and he's a Member of Congress and will always have been one. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:08, 16 January 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) 19:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Monir Khan[edit]

List of songs recorded by Monir Khan (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)

As per most articles written by Abbasulu, this one fails both WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Uses Tidal as a source and other sources are unrelated to subject matter. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:35, 16 January 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) 19:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Syed Abdul Hadi[edit]

List of songs recorded by Syed Abdul Hadi (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)

As per most articles written by Abbasulu, this one fails both WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Uses Spotify and Apple Music as sources and other sources are unrelated to subject matter. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:33, 16 January 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 with no remaining deletion proposals. The article requires clean-up as specified in the discussion (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno (band)[edit]

Fresno (band) (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)

Mostly sourced to the band's own website. There are four Rolling Stone Brasil sources, but two are very short announcements of an album and a music video and one is an interview with a former member. The fourth is an album review which is something, but beside that there's only a Whiplash page which is also an album review but I couldn't speak to the reliability of that website. They do meet maybe a couple points of WP:BAND, namely the gold certifications and possibly with the several awards this page credits to them (all unsourced so needs verification + no guarantee any meet "major music award" status). Would not be surprised if they've also charted in Brazil but I couldn't find anything for that, and I'm not sure if Universal Music Brazil counts as a major record label since it just redirects back to the UMG article and isn't even mentioned by name there. Unless there's more coverage out there that I missed, keeping this would be a stretch at best. QuietHere (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. QuietHere (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but clean up) - One challenge here is that most of their sources are in Portuguese and are tough to nail down with a standard Google search. The band is featured regularly in Rolling Stone Brasil beyond minor blurbs, including one cover story: [13], and several lengthy headline articles: [14], [15], [16]. Most of their albums get reviews in that magazine of a length similar to what other artists get. Their many appearances at the MTV Brasil Awards can be found under a search for that show's local name, VMB, such as: [17] and another from Rolling Stone: [18]. Also, the reason Universal Music Brazil redirects to UMG is because it's a subsidiary and that makes it part of a major label. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the band also has five album articles and one video article, which will have to be handled in some fashion if the band's article is deleted (which I already voted against). I think most of those can be redirected to the band's article. The article for Lucas Silveira (Brazilian singer) should also be redirected to the band because he has done little outside of their works, and that article seems to be frozen in 2017. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Went for a bold redirect of the Silveira article. The albums will need more investigating since there might be enough coverage for some of them. Thanks for your searching; I thought I had seen everything there was in my own search but I guess I missed those RS Brasil pieces somehow. I'm willing to withdraw this now but with a note that it definitely needs the cleanup like you said. QuietHere (talk) 00:10, 18 January 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) 19:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Laeger[edit]

Phil Laeger (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)

Sources & claims inadequate to establish notability TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niche rather than major imoTheLongTone (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the artist is niche? Or the competition? Theprussianbard (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as I understand it, “niche” is not grounds for deletion, per this article: Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable - is that correct? The songwriting competition was held/sponsored by a nationally well-known 40-year old organization, and judged by several Grammy and Dove winning artists. The winner received a publishing deal, and the song was recorded by a major label artist. Theprussianbard (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDoes not appear to pass WP:BASIC (the article doesn't cite multiple, independent secondary sources and neither does a google search turn up such) or
WP:CREATIVE. Hmee2 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unstated "Keep" argument here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am not convinced that the National Day of Prayer song search competition meets a NMUSIC pass. The competition itself seems to come up short of WP:GNG and is lacking any mention in the National Day of Prayer article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Memiš Limani[edit]

Memiš Limani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage at all. I have tried using Serbian Cyrillic ("Мемиш Лимани") but had no luck there either. Subject needs to meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG to have an article but I can't find any evidence of either. I have searched Google Images, Google Books, Google, ProQuest or DDG. This DDG search only comes up with sources directly derived from this Wikipedia article, even the YouTube video is a Wikipedia mirror! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khaitan Riot[edit]

Khaitan Riot (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:NEVENT and WP:SUSTAINED. Avilich (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Kuwait. Avilich (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Does not seem to have any sort of lasting effect and little to no coverage of the event after it happened. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 16 January 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) Twinkle1990 (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dholera Special Investment Region[edit]

Dholera Special Investment Region (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)

User MrsSnoozyTurtle sees the article Dholera Special Investment Region is eligible for CSD even after user Phil_Bridger contested the CSD. Even so MrsSnoozyTurtle is not happy and contusing it for CSD. I have nominated for AfD for satisfaction of them. I also raise WP:CIR of MrsSnoozyTurtle about understanding of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:THREE and WP:RS as per their recent activities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinkle1990 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Gujarat. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to nominator Twinkle1990, you need to describe in guideline/policy terms (such as not meeting GNG or other specific notability guidelines SNGs) the reason for nomination – in relation to content, not contributors. Other fora exist to clear up a dispute with another editor, and AFD is not the correct forum for that. Also please read the guidelines for AFD, especially WP:AFDEQ. Otherwise, it just wastes other editors time. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But since it's here, my comment is that this sort of development usually produces only sourcing that is quite obviously regurgitated press-releases derived directly from government or architects and developers. Although this one dates back to 2019, Google still seems dominated by press-release stuff. Unless someone can find some independent sourcing, it's hard to make a good article. Maybe it's still too soon? Elemimele (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's plenty of book and scholarly coverage: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], Jfire (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khandker Nazrul Quader[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Khandker Nazrul Quader (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)

NN in both business and sports UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brusselians[edit]

Brusselians (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 original research or a fake. This purported ethnic group on the Belgian capital would be similar to a WashingtonianDcer ethnic group. The sources do not support the text. The Russian Wikipedia page is similar to this. The French Wikipedia page, which should be the first Wikipedia to cover such a group, is actually a DAB page between "resident of the city" and the local dialect. It does not describe an ethnic group. Mvqr (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Belgium. Mvqr (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the unique culture of a cosmopolitan national capital is one thing, but calling it an ethnic group is absurd. WesSirius (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Torontonians live in Toronto, the city has a unique culture. Brussels would be similar, but it's not an ethnic group, rather a hodge-podge of people living together. I wouldn't even re-direct it, it's a false narrative. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not actually seeing that the article says this is an ethnic group. I'm getting a few hits on Google Scholar, but they seem to be mostly about language and I am not sure I trust them. There is of course such a group of people who live in Brussels, and they are often opposed to the Walloons, but I don't think I have ever seen them described as an ethnic group. I am leaning Delete, on the reasoning that there isn't *too* much work in this article, and it is better to delete something that is probably wrong and/or SYNTH. Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It uses Template:Infobox ethnic group but in the prose describes them specifically as an ethnographic group. - Aoidh (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Sources don't support the ethnic slant of the article, and a standalone article isn't warranted. There's a reason titles like Parisians and Atlantans are just redirects to the city itself, as the people living in the city are not notable outside of the context of that city. I'm not sure if there's a good redirect target for this since there's Brussels but there's also City of Brussels and Arrondissement of Brussels-Capital, so there doesn't seem to be one redirect targets that would neatly convey everything that could be reasonably described as "Brusselians". - Aoidh (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wonder if someone is trying to introduce a trope of Wallons as rural and French speakers as urban. If so I don't think we should encourage them, as I am not certain that it's true. The language groups are more aligned with neighboring countries than with population density as I recall, not that I claim any special expertise in Brussels beyond driving through Belgium three or four times. While I am opining however, I think that the second and third articles that Aoidh mentioned are more about the jurisdiction, and the first one more about the metropolitan area, which is the closest we would come to an identity. It isn't that language isn't sometimes a proxy for ethnicity, but it seems to me that the article author is doing something akin to saying that everyone who lives in London is a Cockney.Elinruby (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viv Graham[edit]

Viv Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this person meets WP:GNG; He was murdered, and that was of course mentioned in some reliable sources, but otherwise I don't think he is notable. JeffUK 12:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vulcan launches[edit]

List of Vulcan launches (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)

In a consensus here it was decided that, in order to avovid large numbers of list of launches article with little to no value, a list of launches had to have 10 completed launches or be otherwise very significant. This rocket has 0 completed launches and is not even currently operational. Franklly, there is a reasonable possibilty of it being cancelled alltogether. In the absence of proof that this is necessary, this is essentially a POVFORK. I think this article is useless at least at the moment (until this rocket actually starts flying). Next, a there is little confirmed information here. Every date is basically a guesstimate. All dates are in the format of Season Year or Quarter Year at best and just Year or TBD at worst. Finally, the article contradicts itself and is clearly missing information (ex. It says 53 launches are listed below and then proceeds to list only 13 of them) The reason why this article doesn't have all of the information is because there is little to none to go on. The entire article only has 14 references, many of which are not even in the list itself.

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sepp Kunze[edit]

Sepp Kunze (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)

Four 3. Liga games in 2009, otherwise an amateur career. Can find nothing except some old match reports, consequently fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Meir[edit]

Paula Meir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG; citations are mentions in passing, self-cites, database entries, etc. — The Anome (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMOTION. Sources include directory listings (many of them deadlinks) and bookseller websites, PLUS multiple interviews with Sheena Grant of Eastern Daily Press where she offers "expert commentary", one interview with Huntington's Disease Association Magazine, and a byline article she herself wrote in Huffington Post. In other words, there is no significant coverage about the subject in reliable secondary sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cam't find anything that suggests notability. If sources are found please ping me. Devokewater 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Summit League men's soccer tournament[edit]

2022 Summit League men's soccer tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTSEVENT  // Timothy :: talk  07:41, 16 January 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. Article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 12:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Bella Donna[edit]

Lisa Bella Donna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of independent sourcing. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, as per the very convincing argument made by Beccaynr CT55555(talk) 00:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the sourcing work by Wikitehedia and Beccaynr. Jfire (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC per Beccaynr, though that lede could use some trimming as far as the WP:CITEOVERKILL. - Aoidh (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article has been significantly improved since it was nominated and I believe it now meets WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a little borderline, but the coverage in The Stranger, Columbus Monthly, and Brooklyn Rail have sufficient depth. I should note that it's possible that the subject has requested deletion of this article, though the information they are objecting to aligns with the sources; Beccaynr has reached out to that IP on the article's talk page.OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I support the article being deleted if the article subject's wishes are to have it deleted. She has requested it be deleted to me privately via email and on the article talk page. I had sent her an email a few days ago asking if she could give her permission to use one of her photos for the page. I had never interacted with her previous to me sending the email. She is very distressed by the creation of the page for various personal reasons, and asked it be removed. I think in this case the article existing would do more harm then good. Wikitehedia (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there something wrong on the page? Typically speaking, the article's subject not wanting the article to exist is not a sufficient reason for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As an admin and ex-Oversighter, I can offer some perspective there. A surprising amount of people don't want BLPs for all sorts of reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are a magnet for all sorts of vindictive people; stalkers, political operatives, 'wronged' enemies, etc. That's all before the issue of them being a focus for misinformation and often libel, that suddenly becomes 'truth' because it's on Wikipedia. I've seen BLP subjects being absolutely frustrated with their own articles because of "facts" that are posted which they know to be incorrect, yet they are forbidden from correcting them. And on and on. The big one is that BLPs can be a source of libel, doxxing, and a vehicle for stalking and harassment. Seen it many many times & I'm coming up on 20 years here - Alison talk 22:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    tl;dr - if I hear that a BLP subject really doesn't want their article, I try to understand why. There are certain people (not you!) who, on hearing that, actually lean in to keeping it instead. Which is just vindictive, but there ya go. Wikipedia should not exist to harm people - Alison talk 22:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After thinking more about this article, the sources, the discussion here, and a review of the WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE section of WP:BLP policy, I boldly removed the Early life and education section. From my view, her notability is based on her music career, because this is what has received independent and secondary coverage from multiple sources, and we can use caution with coverage not directly related to her music career. Beccaynr (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above meets WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:31, 22 January 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 Foreign relations of Nepal. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 11:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nepali relations[edit]

Nepali relations (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)

Dictionary page, WP:NOTDICT  // Timothy :: talk  07:36, 16 January 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! 06:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Robert Jackson[edit]

Alan Robert Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A successful businessman, but not presented nor referenced as having notability in a Wikipedia sense. Appears to be a memorial. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for future editors, Robert Alan Jackson is not the same person as Alan Robert Jackson. Carpimaps (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is premature to delete this draft article as it is only in the earliest of drafts and editing phases. It would be inappropriate to remove this. Moreover, there is sizable information about Alan Robert Jackson, just not very accessible on the internet, before coming to irrational conclusions, it is best to first properly research the man beyond Google. Carey3146 (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • So WP:DRAFTIFY it then Boneymau (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Boneymau Should the closer of this discussion interpret this as your opinion, please? Or do you offer a different formal opinion, and just offer this as a suggestion to Carey3146? They should note that it is generally considered to be disruptive to move an article under deletion discussion to the Draft: namespace, but that it may be a valid outcome off the discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Carey3146 You are entitled to offer a formal opinion that the article be moved to Draft: space. Please Do not move it unilaterally before this discussion is closed 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those suggesting Draftification should note that the article being discussed for deletion is likely to be a copy and paste move, and that the draft from which it was copied and pasted exists. An editor has requested a history merge. This suggests that draftification has little or no point 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks notable to me. Award winning businessman: won Australia's Business person of the Year in 1985 and 1989 Source: The Australia which describes him as a "true legend in business"; awarded the Order_of_Australia#Officer_(AO) in 1991. Was chair of Australian Trade Commission for a number of years (Google search: "Austrade" "Alan Jackson"); here's another article CEO of the year: The man from Melbourne Piecesofuk (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Piecesofuk - article could do with some cleanup, but Jackson seems notable enough if he headed up a Commonwealth agency. Austrim Nylex (the Australian arm) was at one time one of Australia's largest textile companies. Jackson was also on the Reserve Bank Board for a while too. Deus et lex (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not show notability, not enough RS. NMasiha (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it feels like you've paid no attention to the comments above, done a Google search or in fact done anything to even justify your comment. Can you please reconsider? Deus et lex (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it possible to change the name of ‘Alan Robert Jackson’ to ‘Alan Jackson (businessman)’ instead? 101.181.73.28 (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Carey3146 (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep With over 20 references to this article and plenty of information and proof. This article is well and truly deserving of permanently staying on Wikipedia. Carey3146 (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Carey3146, you can only cast one "vote" so I'm striking the second one. Also, now that you have an account, please do not edit logged out. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With being the head of the Trade Commission and winning the Order of Australia and the extra sources as cited above, should be an easy keep. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: To me the references that are contained in the article show that the subject meets WP:N. Having an AO and the numerous other positions Jackson held implies WP:SIGNIFICANCE. Further the "CEO of the year: The man from Melbourne" source included above by @ Piecesofuk shows WP:SIGCOV by a reliable source, independent of the subject, and isn't just a trivial mention. - GA Melbourne (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done some cleanup on the sourcing to get a better handle on what we're dealing with here. I'm leaning towards keep per GNG, but there are some problems with how Carey has attempted to cite things, such as copying bare urls to publications' websites that require subscription access. This just returns a page which says "Click here to subscribe to The Australian" etc. which is not helpful to anyone without a subscription and doesn't show us what the underlying article actually is (Carey, if you see this, please ad info like the title of the specific news article you are citing, the date it was published, and the person who wrote it, if possible). There are also some failed verification issues with those and few other sources. It might take additional cleanup or at least a more clear presentation of the sources (as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP) for us to be sure what counts as significant coverage and what doesn't. Someone with a subscription to Australian newspapers might be helpful. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Boys (2013 film)[edit]

Buffalo Boys (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A film that does not seem to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Although the article seems to have a copious amount of sources and external links, looking through them reveals that none of them actually appear to be genuine coverage in reliable sources, being things like press releases, blogs, and non-notable websites. Pretty much the best coverage the film got was only in small, local and college periodicals. Searching for sources turned up no professional reviews or coverage in reliable sources that I could find. Rotten Tomatoes also does not list any reviews for the film. The film's only claim to notability appears to be winning minor prizes at largely non-notable film festivals. Please note that there was a more notable film with the same name (Buffalo Boys (2018 film)), but it is unrelated to this film. Rorshacma (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film festival win might be notable. There's an Indonesian film with the same name from a few years later that has more coverage. Weak keep based on the festival award, but I can't find any coverage of it online (dead links as explained above). Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I will boldly put this out of its misery. Not every film ever made is notable. Franky, this is a minor film with very little attention given to it. -- GreenC 16:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with GreenC, not every film ever created is notable.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:58, 23 January 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 (as an editorial decision) to List of pen names. There is no consensus here for outright deletion, but a wide acceptance that there are issues with the article in its current state. The list only contains a small fraction of notable works published under a pseudonym to the point that it lacks the needed comprehenisveness to be useful. Much of that work would involve duplicating the effort that has already been made in assembling the list of pen names, so as an editorial decision, I am redirecting the page to the list of pen names even though the titles don't give a perfect match. If someone disagrees, and wants to go through the task of expanding the list of works into something more usable, they are free to undo the redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of works published under a pseudonym[edit]

List of works published under a pseudonym (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 scope is way too broad for a Wikipedia list. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep, but this would require both radical expansion and diffusion, perhaps by century or by country. We should list pseudonymous works, but if we do, the list(s) should be thorough, and an appropriately thorough listing of pseudonymous works would be too long to have in a single article. BD2412 T 05:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep, but as BD2412 says, this would require a major rework of the list contents; Category:Works published under a pseudonym has well over 500 works listed, so even if the list noted only the most historically or artistically significant works (eg. the Federalist Papers and similar) it would still have to be expanded massively. And some of the current list is just cruft. — The Anome (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If its a valid category, its a valid list article. Lists articles are more useful than categories since they provide more information. Dream Focus 11:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've had a go at improving the list by removing some cruft and adding some famous examples of pseudonymous publication. Truly anonymous works should go in the separate list List of anonymously published works. — The Anome (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of pen names will be more comprehensive and useful than listing all of the works by all of these authors, which would be a much larger and unwieldly list. It's still untrue that any category should have an equal list. Reywas92Talk 15:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep as the basic concept looks good, and turning Category:Works published under a pseudonym into an organized list (maybe split across pages) would be a fairly straightforward clerical job once an organization scheme is chosen. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, when you count this category's subcategories, there are at least 1,700 works by pseudonymous authors with articles. Per WP:SALAT, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value ..." Even with that followed by "unless they are split into sections", I do not believe we would be well served by such an enormous list. Reywas92Talk 23:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is doomed to failure, as the number of works that have been written under pseudonyms is unbelievably huge. Just as examples you need all of the works of Samuel Clemens under various pseudonyms, works of folks like Amanda Cross, John Le Carre, and my favorite, Lauran Paine, who wrote hundreds of books under perhaps 2 dozen different pseudonyms. Then you have the works that were once published under pseudonyms, like Flatland, but that later were attributed to a person. In the 18th century many works were given authors like "A Country Gentleman". Is that a pseudonym? How about a work that actual says on it that the author is named "Anonymous"? You have the person who wrote as Colette but whose name was really Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette. Is that a pseudonym? I simply do not find a partial list to be useful, and I don't believe that a complete-enough list can be created. Lamona (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far too broad. List of pen names is the way to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of pen names. This is too broad and the best way to cover this is to follow links from the authors themselves. Archrogue (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as it is pretty evenly divided and opinion seems based on preferences rather than policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is way too broad ever to work, i.e. the list is hopelessly indiscriminate. Category is a more workable approach for such enormous numbers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crookton, Arizona[edit]

Crookton, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is definitely a rail location; if nothing else, it was the west end of a major ATSF rerouting in the late 1950s, and I also found a picture of the section house there. Crookton Road is also well-known as a well-preserved section of the old US 66. What I can't find is any evidence there was a town here. There's a conspicuous (a currently pointless) bend in the road where it appears to have gone around the railroad facilities, but there's just no other sign of anything here, and I cannot find documentation of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The text needs amending as it's not a populated place. Rail enthusiasts refer to Crookton as a stretch of line [28]. A map from the 1970s references (Old Route 66) "Crookton overpass" and "Crookton (site)" see [29] (1st map). But the 'site' could just refer to the railway building/facilities. So the name's in use but there's little evidence that a settlement existed. I also checked Arizona Ghost Towns but Crookton isn't listed.
The article could be useful as a location finder for U.S. Route 66 in Arizona #The early years where Crookton is linked and mentioned several times. However, I don't think the page is likely to develop beyond a stub, so alternatively, perhaps a redirect to the aforelinked Route 66 article is preferable. Not sure. Rupples (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not voting since I haven't looked into the standards for railway articles, but that does seem to be what this is. Nothing on Google Scholar, and all mentions in Google Books involve railways in some form. Elinruby (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elinruby: WP:NTRAINSTATION might be a good place to look if you're interested in the sourcing standards for notable railway articles. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elinruby (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that it's on Ranch Rd, which does have an I-40 exit. It's on the way to something called the Johnson Crater, about which I know nothing. (But it does have a Wikidata item). OTOH in the other direction, Ranch Rd goes to Seligman, which I would say is notable (German settlers and German restaurant). Past that are the Burma-Shave signs, which I would call notable, and Peach Springs is extremely notable as a starting point for the hike into the Hualapai reservation and the Grand Canyon. So treating it as part of Rte 66 may be the way to go. Elinruby (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a redirect is suggested, indirectly, but not really proposed. This is a possible ATD and I'm hoping more discussion would confirm this possibility or dismiss it in favor of simple deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to U.S. Route 66 in Arizona: I guess I will stop being shy and propose it then! I can take a hint. Here is what I found when I did a deep dive into the maps. if you take the Ranch Road exit off I-40, and turn right, the location we've been looking at is not far, 2-3 miles, up the road. Past it, the road goes to the Johnson Crater, which appears to be just exactly that, then snakes up into the mountains between Ash Fork and the Grand Canyon, which it does not seem to reach. However, if you turn left from the Ranch Road exit, you are on one of the longer segments of Rte 66, which, for those who have never gotten their kicks there, snakes around I-40 in different places in the Southwestern United States. Seligman, Arizona turns out to be even more notable than I thought, and has an extensive article that includes several chunks of railroad history that made my eyes glaze over, but might tell someone more knowledgeable than me what that railway installation might be in Crookton. I think Seligman is a little too far from Crookton to be a natural redirect target, unless there is some tie through the railroad, however, which is why I am proposing the road per Rupples. I am not advocating the anchor as a the way they they do, but that's simply because the.timeframe isn't clear to me. I don't oppose it if somebody thinks it applies. Past Seligman, as I mentioned before, you go through about 30 miles of Burma-Shave signs. (This part is based on memories of driving through there, but they do have an article.) Then comes Peach Springs, which is the market town of an indigenous community, and the way you get into the remote western part of the Grand Canyon. Somebody should add that to the Peach Springs article btw, although I did note it on the talk page. Hope this helps. Elinruby (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elinruby Thanks for the alert. I've been busy with further searches and I am now in the throes of building a case for Keep! The reason is that Crookton was/is primarily a railway point and the Route 66 designation is secondary. Because of this dual road/railway identity dilemma I don't see a valid redirect. I'm in the process of putting up sources that give an idea how the article could be developed, so please bear with me.
    Like you, I considered a redirect or merge to Seligman (and as an alternative Ash Fork) but agree they're not ideal because of the distances involved (10 and 13 miles respectively). Rupples (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment. The photograph of the railway building provided by the AfD nominator, gave me the idea of looking for similar photos and one was found for Hymer, a depopulated place in Kansas. If Hymer has a standalone page, why not Crookton? But acknowledge that perhaps Hymer should be put up for an AfD discussion.
Anyway, searches for sources to expand this article, though apparently reliable and independent, may not be sufficient to allow the retention of Crookton as a standalone article. The article may still fall short of WP:GNG but I'm putting them forward to illustrate possible expansion.
  1. This book on Arizona place names describes Crookton as a point on the railway named after General George Crook [30]. Crook was engaged in the Yavapai War - Yavapai being the county in which Crookton lies.
  2. A multitude of Internet Archive sources for the 1959 rerouting of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway such as [31].
  3. Crookton referred to in a traffic report [32] 3rd item down (not significant of itself but shows the place is referenced in contemporary sources).
  4. Mention of the Crookton Road exit off Interstate 40 in a number of travel guides such as [33].
If Crookton is viewed as an area rather than just a railway halt, then possible inclusion of:
  1. Archeological digs near to Crookton Station Road [34] and
  2. Details of geographical features such as Picacho Butte [35]
Bit of abstract trivia
  1. A sculpture by Kenneth Price called Crookton [36].
I believe "keep" is preferable because the dual nature of the railway/road aspects plus the distance to other places makes it hard to recommend a suitable candidate for a redirect or merge.
Rupples (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. We can't have an article on a populated place without a reliable source saying it's a populated place, and we don't. WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, if it isn't one of those (and we would need a source to prove that) then it has to pass the GNG. The sources listed above which mention it as a stretch of road or railway don't come remotely close to showing this. Since there are multiple possible targets I think deletion is better than redirection. Hut 8.5 18:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has now been changed to indicate that the subject isn't a populated place, but I still don't think it's notable. Unlike populated places it would be rather unusual for a point on a railroad to be notable, and that's what the article says the subject is. Hut 8.5 19:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal given Rupples's interest, don't delete. I understand the issue of it not meeting specific criteria, but if somebody wants to develop our coverage of the area then let them work, is what I say, in draft if necessary. There is likely to be readership for whatever emerges, given that many international travelers have the Grand Canyon on their bucket list and will be researching an itinerary. Since railways are not in my repertoire, I am not sure how interesting the place is to a buff; but if I correctly understood the link Red-tailed hawk showed me, there is nothing inherently notable about railways, and GNG applies. HtH. Elinruby (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I didn't expect to relist this discussion a second time but the opinions have actually grown and gotten more complicated than in the first week of the discussion. I still don't see a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ok, look, I understand the point that it doesn't seem to be an inhabited place. I pretty much agree with that, and if it's categorized that way, then I also think that that is wrong. Yet there seems to be a historicity and possible notability here. This followup assumes that Rupples is still interested in working on the article, because, to be clear, I have other fish to fry. But I don't see the issue with treating the place as point of interest along Route 66. For example. My father used to make side trips along the way when we were travelling, based on sightings of a particular bird. I am not arguing that such sightings would be wiki-notable, just that there are more criteria for notability than are dreamt of in GEOLAND. In hopes this advances the discussion, Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. The article as it stands is misleading, so, for that reason I won't oppose delete. The only evidence for Crookton being a populated place is the picture of the section house, now gone.
The article is wikilinked on the Southern Transcon and U.S. Route 66 in Arizona pages and that's the reason I gave a Keep !vote and put up possible sources to expand the article. However, it may be sufficient to add a sentence to those articles explaining where Crookton is.
Was hoping for a bit more feedback on my suggestions for expanding the article. I haven't changed the page because I'm not sure Crookton's best described in the infobox e.g. Crookton, "former railway halt", Crookton "Route 66", Crookton "an area"? Additional searches haven't yielded anything further, so I guess it's just the name itself that's used. Probably not enough for a separate article because there's hardly anything there to describe and the sources I put up are in essence mentions of the name or of indirect relevance, and hence don't satisfy notability requirements. If it's any help, I'll replace my keep !vote with "Comment". Rupples (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rupples If an infobox field is confusing I am in favor of simply omitting the infobox field, as a rule. "Abandoned railway buildings"? Archeological site? Elinruby (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point - misleading "populated" now removed. What Crookton relates to can be explained in the text. Rupples (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain whether that means that you think that you can establish notability for a separate article. My current position is that if so you should do that. If not, I am not going to work on it, and and we haven't enunciated a reason why it's notable, since we agree it's not currently a populated place. Elinruby (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. I have the impression I'm "flogging a dead horse" because the sources I put up look insufficient to establish GNG. Since I haven't found anything else to add (and not for want of looking), I'm not going to make a recommendation and accept whatever transpires. Appreciate your comments. Rupples (talk) 21:53, 20 January 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! 05:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowflake, the White Gorilla[edit]

Snowflake, the White Gorilla (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, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep, based on the large number of foreign-language Wiki versions with citations suggesting more extensive coverage in other languages. That, plus the fact that the English-language voice cast collects some fairly big names—Ariana Grande, David Spade, Jennette McCurdy, and Christopher Lloyd—leads me to suspect that this is a notable production. BD2412 T 05:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added analysis from a just-published scholarly article (the pages can be found in the Amazon.com preview for the referenced book containing the article), which has about 600 words of analysis of the film. BD2412 T 05:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One review of the film given is fine; poor sourcing otherwise. I looked at the Fr wiki article, it uses ImDB and blog-type sites, so nothing there for reviews. It mentions this video won some awards, but I don't think they're notable. It was a Spanish release, perhaps more sources are to be found in that language? Weak Delete until we can confirm if there are other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish sources are not helpful to achieve notability. BruceThomson (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per the significant coverage in the scholarly article identified above, but more reviews in reliable sources would clinch it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMDB has links to 10 secondary reviews with languages including Italian, Spanish and German: [37]. The Guardian features the film cover in a gallery about the Cannes film festival Marché [38] along with the quote "Something just slightly uncomfortable about this one" ResonantDistortion 15:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tendency to keep. Improvements by @BD2412: adding a scholarly article, a thorough national review, and commentary from a known WP:RS enough to push over WP:NF. ResonantDistortion 20:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are more editors advocating Keeping this article but also significant doubts on the part of others about whether additional reliable sources/reviews can be located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep moving to full keep as the additional references identified in this discussion such as the multiple reviews described by ResonantDistortion as well as the scholarly journal article show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 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 Reframe as Lists of poems.. There is clear consensus that the list as it stands is meaningless, as its scope is too broad. As such there is consensus to turn it into a navigational list akin to lists of books. No specific proposal has been put forward as to how the splits should be made, but that is out of scope for AfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of poems[edit]

List of poems (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 list's scope is way too broad for Wikipedia. Mucube (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Obviously poetry can't be contained in a single list, this is too indiscriminate to be useful. Reywas92Talk 03:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Category:Lists of poems. If it won't fit in a single list, then as always just split it into separate lists. The size of a length is never a valid list to delete it. Category:Lists of books by type shows an example of how often this sort of thing is done as well. Dream Focus 03:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absurd, just because anyone is welcome make a Lists of poems doesn't mean there should be this page. How would you split this list, were it actually somewhat comprehensive? List of poems (A), List of poems (B)? Dumb, still too indiscriminate. Reywas92Talk 14:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Category:Lists of poems shows how the poems are already separated into various lists, so it can easily be done. Any notable poems not in one of these divided lists already, should have a place to be listed. And in list articles that are too long, are often divided in alphabetical order or by year, this does not make it indiscriminate. Dream Focus 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Poems are so clearly notable things, and therefore this meets WP:NLIST CT55555(talk) 04:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)][reply]
    • Wrong, just because a basic concept is notable doesn't mean any list of them is appropriate for Wikipedia. We have a Lists of books but no List of books because the latter, just like this article, would be enormous and indiscriminate. Reywas92Talk 14:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was good reason to create this list in 2004. In 2023, it would make more sense to have list of lists of poems, on the pattern of other articles. We should discuss a transition, rather than deletion. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SALAT "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value ..." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the full quote to be more helpful Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections.. You almost persuaded me to delete based on your quote, but the full sentence makes me remain keep and advocate for splitting into sections. CT55555(talk) 15:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you propose splitting it then? Alphabetically remains too broad in scope to have any value. Category:Poems shows divisions by author, topic, etc., though these (a) aren't really a split of this list and (b) are still pretty broad in scope. A Lists of poems may be welcome, one which doesn't pretend to have countless entries, but that's no reason to keep the page being discussed here until it's been appropriately split. Reywas92Talk 15:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not make a proposal for how to split it, I trust others have skills and experiences that will better inform them on how to do that than I do. And I don't think this forum is the place to resolve editing decisions about the article. CT55555(talk) 15:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on, you can't "advocate for splitting into sections" but then not actually say how the page should be split into sections! If that's the basis to keep the article yet it cannot be feasibly done without addressing the fact that "poems" is indiscriminately broad, the vote is not a reasonable one. Dividing by topic, author, or other format does not require keeping this page when there are decent categories for this. Reywas92Talk 16:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I am permitted to argue to keep without also being required to solve all editing issues for the article at the same time. I see your passionate disagreement with me, and I hope you'll understand my reducing enthusiasm to continue discussing this, as I don't think we are going to reach consensus and the volume of both our comments here so far is starting to dominate the conversation, something which I would rather avoid. Peace. CT55555(talk) 18:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at List of Emily Dickinson poems I see much added value for the reader, by the use of Wikisource links to the text of Dickinson's short poems. That seems to me an admirable example. Where list of poems has an individual poem listed, there in some cases could be a listing compiled (depending obviously on dates, language, etc.). As far as process is concerned, the existing wikitext could be moved to the Talk page. There is future potential in this approach. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel like we could turn Category:Lists of poems into a page that provides added value above and beyond the category. That seems better than deleting this page and easier than trying to expand it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, a list without boundaries. Or at least, none that seem to be expressed on the talk page. All of the poems here seem to be ones that have titles. Many poems do not have titles and are referred to by their first lines - I don't see those being included but it isn't clear why not. This means that all of Emily Dickinson is excluded. I can imagine useful lists of poems by various criteria: language, country of origin, certain specific topics (nature, love, war), etc. But a list of poems that happen to have titles is not a viable list. Lamona (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It can be split if it becomes too long, and a search box can be added similar to List of Latin phrases. Peter James (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think it would help if those advocating Keep offered some ideas on how this list could be better defined or how it might be split into more specific lists rather than one general list that could potentially list hundreds of articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but support the lists of poems idea à la lists of books. This would be useful to readers, unlike this indiscriminate list which could theoretically be expanded to include every notable poem written in any language.JohnmgKing (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is either going to be too long and impossible to use, or too short and incomplete. As others have observed, the Lists of books article seems a good model, and Category:Lists of poems gives a good starting point for creating Lists of poems as its own article. It might even encourage people to create new useful lists (I'm thinking about maybe a list of New Zealand poems, for example). Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:28, 20 January 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 Borat with the option of merging well-sourced content. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azamat Bagatov[edit]

Azamat Bagatov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A year ago I tagged Azamat Bagatov as failing notability. Nobody has improved and a WP:PROD was removed. I tried my best just now to expand that article, adding a reception section, but I don't think there is enough out there to warrant keeping this. I did propose a merge but with 4 votes to merge and 2 to keep at Talk:Borat it was eventually declined. Given that, I think we need a trial by fire here. I think the 'analysis and reception' section I wrote could be merged (note it is not even about the character as much as about one popular scene that he shares with the main character anwyay); nothing else seems useful (plot summary already exists in the movie article). The sentence about why the actor refused to play in the sequel could be merged there (I note that there is a different explanation in the sequel than the one we have here). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Borat. Not enough sources to warrant keeping this by itself. The little sources that are about it are really about Borat and not about the minor character. --Jamarast (talk) 09:54, 16 January 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! 05:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leyden Publishing[edit]

Leyden Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP, all available significant coverage is from primary sources that do not contribute towards establishing notability. Searching on Google Scholar for either Leyden Publishing, Michael Leyden or Peter Leyden yields no meaningful results; searching on Google Books turns up trivial mentions and books they published, but no notability-establishing secondary coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 01:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion on the article talk:

An editor has queried the notability of this series of companies.

The Leyden series of explorers and civics "illustrated novels" in the 1950s were a brilliant innovation, and nothing like them has existed before or since. It comes from a time when a "new nationalism" was developing in Australia. The books represent, like folk song at the time, an alternative, subversive version of our history.

In the 1950s at primary school I adored these books, learned virtually everything I know about Australia in the post-colonial period from them, and from them I developed a lifetime yen to become an explorer. Leyden taught a whole generation of Australians their history, with information that was available nowhere else and which the current generation knows nothing about.

The books had extraordinarily wide penetration due to their network of travellers and I think their claim that most primary Australian schools had copies is correct. That the company was able to continue in the family for more than fifty years indicates their popularity.

As well, this is probably the only example I know of a successful sustained enterprise by "political progressives". That they now give away their resources shows their original purpose was not the making of money but the improvement of society.

Like a lot of "quiet achiever" direct sales companies, there was not much attempt to obtain public recognition beyond sales. There is a steady stream of newspaper advertising for representatives over about 30 years, and not much other publicity.

I don't accept the argument of User Rosguill that products (often audiovisual) have to be on google scholar or google books before they are to be regarded as "notable". This is an inappropriate and selective choice of "sources". These people are not and never were "scholars" though they did hire scholars including Dorothy Hewett to write the books.

Do I really have to publish an article on this company before I can get it into Wikipedia? Redabyss1 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding my argument a bit--I'm not saying that Leyden Publishing's work needs to have been on Google Scholar; I'm saying that I am unable to find any coverage of Leyden Publishing on Google Scholar (or elsewhere). We need independent coverage in published reliable sources, your own analysis of the subject's significance absent sourcing is not sufficient. So yes, in a sense, you (or someone else with access to a reliable press) needs to publish independent materials about the company before Wikipedia can write about it. signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, Rosguill So - I'm contacting the company and other associated parties. I cannot believe a company with a 70 year history of innovation never attracted any public comment. In the meantime I am seeing Leyden works cited quite frequently, therefore making them presumably both notable and useful.
Other small publishers dont seem to fare any better - take a look at the McPhee Gribble stub. Wild & Woolley looks better, but only because the founder wrote a story about it - hardly independent! While WP:NCORP draws the line, surely the ultimate underlying principle must be for Wikipedia that the firms 'made a difference' and these three publishing companies most definitely did.(talk) 22:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and doesn't show WP:SIGCOV. Citations from independent, reliable, secondary sources either provide a trivial mention or don't really mention the article's subject (rather Peter or Michael Leyden). - GA Melbourne (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not finding any coverage of the publisher itself in ProQuest or general Wikipedia Library search, where I would expect to find articles. The few hits you do get are for books published by Leyden, where the publisher is simply named (nothing about the company itself). Yes, researching and writing articles about publishers can be difficult. My advice for future would be to not start writing the article until you find at least two or three in-depth articles or book chapters about the subject, in reliable secondary sources, per WP:GNG. In the case of a commercial entity such as this one, you also need to be familiar with WP:NCORP. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NCORP criteria (this is a company) for establishing notability, mentions-in-passing only, nothing in-depth nor significant. HighKing++ 14:18, 17 January 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! 05:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Royalty Tour (Mary J. Blige and Nas Tour)[edit]

The Royalty Tour (Mary J. Blige and Nas Tour) (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)

Procedural nomination per consensus at RfD. I have no opinion on this article, nor if it should be deleted or kept. CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NTOUR, a utterly MILL concert co-headlining tour, there is no ATD to do so. Same outcome as the Maroon 5 and Counting Crows AFD --2600:1700:9BF3:220:B9E1:5B8:C232:4F52 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my vote at the RfD: If there is anything mergeable, merge to Mary J. Blige and Nas articles. Retarget to the article that has better and more useful coverage of the tour. If the coverage is same at both, then keep, or retarget to one or the other, it doesn't matter, but before that move to a proper-titled The Royalty Tour without redirect. Jay 💬 02:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to keep the article, then try searching up and find sources from different media organizations such as reviews and revamp the article if you wish for. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:B9E1:5B8:C232:4F52 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the "keep" comment made sense at the RfD, not here. I have struck it off and re-phrased. Jay 💬 02:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 16 January 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! 06:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajai Sharma (Chef)[edit]

Ajai Sharma (Chef) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourced entirely by what appears to be press releases. A google search appears to come up with similar sourcing. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 06:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment speedy deleted three times at Ajai Sharma for notability and advertising with SEO/PR references; original creator indefinitely blocked for advertising. 2A01:4C8:B3:B050:ECE4:8F4:E646:A246 (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing but spam and paid sourcing, links to blog "interviews", straight up SEO that has been removed many times. Searches turn up the usual footprint of an active PR campaign: brand placement/guest posting articles, cupcake interviews, and directory entries. All are written as puffery. The "author" part appears to be a single self-published book. Obvious COI editor here, in addition to the ones previously blocked. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the article is not exactly ideal in it's current form, the creator appears to want to improve it (as seen on his talk page). Are there any good sources we can find for this? Teb (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi Deb I have cited my sources which are reliable for verifying the credibility of the person, please guide me through if I need any other sources. I have updated the social networking sites, official websites and added the chef stub to the page as well Mani12121995 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Editor I have added the sources with proper citations and tags into the Page "Ajai Sharma (Chef) the page is owned by me (Ajai Sharma) please can you help me to avoid the deletion I have added all the genuine things on the profile
I'll improve and keep on adding things with proper citations and sources. Can we please avoid the deletion in good faith, if in future you feel its violating any Wikipedia norms I won't have any issues if my page is taken down
Best Chef Ajai Sharma Mani12121995 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only press releases, interviews, and stuff written by the article subject. The newly added sources are more of the same. - MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 18 January 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. It would be great if the sources mentioned in this discussion could get moved over to the article being discussed. While the nominator might have been unfamiliar with media sources in this country, I can understand why they chose to nominate this article for a deletion discussion. It still needs work. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eero Rebo[edit]

Eero Rebo (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 GNG and NBIO. Most of the sources I could find was from ""EER"", which is a non reliable website, and the other ones that aren't EER are also unreliable. The source in the article is from the Estonia government, which only tells us a little information about him and most of it is what battles he fought in. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 06:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. EER and the others do not have original information, most of it is generally unrealiable. The Postimees is a interview, with not much information expect about the war in ukraine, that doesnt make him notable just because he was in a interview. Estonian Public Broadcasting has no writiers or editors mentioned which makes me believe its also unreliable and Õhtuleht is also just a interview about the ukraine war which also doesnt make him notable.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 06:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment You must be looking something wrong. Video interviews with him and I added the writer/editor in case you missed it: [39]-Merili Nael [40]-Marko Tooming [41]-Aleksander Krjukov [42]-Robin Roots. There are bunch of articles too and all of them have writers or editors mentioned. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interviews dont establish notability, not a lot of people would watch a video on something they aren't interested in.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 13:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the national television... People can actually be notable, whether or not you are interested in them. If your neighbouring country is in a war (all things considering), you might have a completely different view. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally a news report of him being awarded Officer of the Year by the Estonian Defence Forces...ExRat (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article with actual words would be better then someone awarding someone in a different language.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You were given plenty of articles "with actual words" from reliable sources. Also, a video news report from Kanal 2 is a reliable source, regardless of language. Wikipedia doesn't have tiers of preferred languages; as along as a reference is from a reliable source, they can be in any language. ExRat (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources are adequate, per ExRat and Pelmeen10, and much of nom's rationale is apparently based on misunderstandings. Ingratis (talk) 19:30, 17 January 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. Keep now that the event started on January 19, 2023. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Junior Alpine Skiing Championships 2023[edit]

World Junior Alpine Skiing Championships 2023 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed Draftification. Virtually unreferenced. WP:TOOSOON. Recommend draftify pending event start 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This event is coming up and it needs to be a article and needs to updated.Oddballslover (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draftspace until there's actual content in the article after it has happened. Right now, doesn't show that it passes WP:GNG, although I expect once the event happens it will, if someone bothers to write more than a two line stub. It doesn't need this article in mainspace right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sources added and starts in 3 days anyways. Pelmeen10 (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for potential further development. Any admin may close this relisted discussion if circumstances change to moot the discussion. BD2412 T 05:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - starting tomorrow. If no one updates the article, I will do. --- Løken (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sorry but for me it is incomprehensible how this deletion request can exist. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the article contains zero independent sources to demonstrate notability? It is happening now is not a valid reason to keep if notability is not demonstrated. None of the keep voters have actually referenced any sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Which is what an AFD discussion is actually about rather than these wooly "it is happening now, so must stay" rubbish. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302 Your point is well made. WP:NOTNEWS applies. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually try to search for sources? Google? I also suggest the search with "Alpine Ski-Juniorenweltmeisterschaft 2023" and there's enough coverage from 42,600 results. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the event has started more and more information will be added to the article. I already contributed some additional information and sources, which should back up the relevance of this article. Florian100100 (talk) 20:26, 20 January 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 Golden hamster. Merge any useful content then redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian hamster care[edit]

Syrian hamster care (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:NOTHOWTO. There's no reason for this article to exist. It should just be redirected to golden hamster after transferring any useful material. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per above. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 05:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, possibly partial merge, as per WP:NOTHOWTO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Seems like an attempted fork from the article about the hamster, doesn't feel like it's quite ready for a fork yet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 16 January 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 Noise Floor (Rarities: 1998–2005). Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion Sickness (Bright Eyes song)[edit]

Motion Sickness (Bright Eyes song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG, this individual song does not need it's own article. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 05:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Noise Floor (Rarities: 1998–2005): Found a bit of coverage confirming the single release, but nothing else and definitely not enough for the article. QuietHere (talk) 15:17, 16 January 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! 05:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Johnson College[edit]

Bishop Johnson College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School fails WP:NSCHOOL, only sources are two spammy links that mirror each other. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 05:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:38, 16 January 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! 04:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Australia relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Albania–Australia relations (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)

Previously deleted. 3 of the 5 sources are merely about the Albanian flag being flown in Canberra alongside the flags of all countries with representation in Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 16 January 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. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saâd Sahraoui[edit]

Saâd Sahraoui (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. Pelmeen10 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 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! 03:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhrupad Mathur[edit]

Dhrupad Mathur (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:BIO and WP:PROF as an academic. References 3 to 6 are not indepth, and reference 1 is primary. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 16 January 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. Daniel (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central African Republic at the 2019 World Athletics Championships[edit]

Central African Republic at the 2019 World Athletics Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and the country did not compete at the event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if there were actual results of participants it would be a keep, but there are none. Oppose Merge with Central African Republic as we would not merge such insignificant information into a country article. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notwithstanding the wider issue of whether we should be creating these articles for every country at this championships anyway, there are no results or significant information to show, as no-one from this country competed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 16 January 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! 02:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Rios (Quarterback)[edit]

Jorge Rios (Quarterback) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:YOUNGATH or WP:GNG. BangJan1999 00:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete no evidence that this young athlete has received any coverage by websites that track high school athletes. References seem to lead either directly to generic urls or self-referenced webpages. Additionally the article seems to be written by the subject themselves. -
Epluribusunumyall (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:YOUNGATH, and WP:NGRIDIRON, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Not enough coverage. JojoMN1987 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost entirely written by *someones* Dad. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MistyJelloDad Habanero-tan (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Piling on here, but I agree with those above. Absolutely TOOSOON and no coverage. Very rare for a high school football player to meet notability requirements, the only one I'm aware of in recent memory is Arch Manning. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very few high school football players meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and the ones that do are always 5 star prospects (recent examples include Arch Manning, Travis Hunter and Nico Iamaleava). Rios isn't even ranked in the top 1000 recruits of his class and as far as I can tell doesn't even have a page on 247, the main source for high school players which has over 2000+ bios for player his age. This is also a poorly written article (obviously he is a free agent, he's in high school) so not much is lost.--Newtothisedit (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not seeing any sign of notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:45, 19 January 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. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Yandall[edit]

Patrick Yandall (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 does not establish subject’s notability at all, with all references on the page being links to indexes that do not establish notability Mach61 (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mach61 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable artist. Charting artist. A festival favorite throughout the US. sdnews.com link

    Chart info >>> - 2011, the release "The Window" on Innervision Records was featured worldwide! Chart-topping single off that, "Tower of Soul" reached #1 for 5 weeks on smoothjazznow chart and #1 on Radio Wave monitor for Live 365 smooth jazz! Top 30 for main Groove Jazz And featured CD on smoothjazz.com! .. .. .. Patricks 2009 smooth jazz release, "A New Day" with the #1 smooth jazz hit "I Am There" on radio wave monitor smooth jazz chart! (top 50 for 2009 Groove Jazz Chart!) Worldwide airplay and top 10 on Groove Jazz chart!
    https://www.reverbnation.com/patrickyandall?popup_bio=true
    Karl Twist (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the article was so poorly sourced. It needs work. I have done a little to kick it off, but I have other things to attend to. Karl Twist (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. Finding single mentions mostly in performance lineups, but not significant coverage. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The sourcing is poor and doesn't back up what the article claims. It seems the stated accomplishments such as having music featured in various media, and multiple recordings would point to RS coverage somewhere, so more leg work with research/sourcing needs to happen on that end. Is something so specifically insular as the San Diego Music awards significant criteria for notability? Maybe--but it would be nice to have a source that verifies as much. So far the justifications with the single Keep vote are puzzling, as the reference that purportedly shows that he is "a festival favorite throughout the US" is simply a name check that proves existence, not RS coverage that backs up the claim. The examples of chart activity seem to all lead to smoothjazz.com, which is a jazz promotion and marketing service ( see the about section on their website:
    https://www.smoothjazz.com/marketing
    so I don't know how any of these are significant charts. What we are left with is evidence of run of the mill coverage e.g. database listings, press releases, and performance notices. ShelbyMarion (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Never heard of the guy and not a jazz fan, but there seems to be adequate coverage in independent jazz publications and books (both found using Google). Yes, this article needs improvement and better sourcing, but the sources exist based on less than five minutes of looking. (Note that the above source, reverbnation, does not count as it includes artist created content). Rublamb (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a week. If you find reliable sources, now is the time to link to them. Don't allude to finding stuff in Google searches without being specific so other editors can see what you are finding and evaluate these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DWL Architects[edit]

DWL Architects (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:CORP, CORPDEPTH. Really nothing special about this company that does typical architectural firm stuff in Arizona. There are many, many coverages to the Arizona Republic cited in this article. However, they are basically factual verification of involvement in the various projects listed out. Notability is NOT inherited. So companies that designed and built buildings that are not notable for any reason other than for the work of the architectural firm does not count towards the firm's notability. Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first source clearly fails the independent secondary criteria. It is written around the company's press release and it's essentially churnalism. It is full of "said Steve Rao, DWL President." type contents, which makes it a dependent source. Significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources are required in depth. If they're in the same paper or by the same journalist, that would be considered one. And the second one seems to be a narrow focus magazine specific to architectural stuff; and being in one of annual awards makes it rather routine. It is one of plethora of awards given out by AIA annually. So it's nothing special like a Nobel Prize or even a Pulitzer. Graywalls (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my search for sources has so far found: DWL Celebrates Seven Decades of Design (bylined to DWL Architects + Planners, Greater Phoenix InBusiness, 2019), DWL Celebrates Seven Decades of Design (no byline but the same text, Airport Improvement, 2019), DWL Celebrates Seven Decades of Design (no byline, same text, Aviation Pros, 2019). As to the Dec. 16, 2019 AZBigMedia source cited above, the same text appears at the website of the company in a post dated Dec. 16, 2019: DWL Establishes Regional Office, Ohio, so this is an example of dependent coverage per WP:ORGIND, and also provides insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability because an announcement of an expansion [...] of the business is an example of trivial coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on GBooks, I found namechecks/brief mentions of their collaboration with Will Bruder Architects on the Burton Barr Phoenix Central Library, e.g. [43] at 22, [44] at 156-157, [45] at 146, [46], but these sources are not significant coverage of the company itself as described in WP:NCORP. Similarly, there is verification of their collaboration with BOORA on a Dynamic Thermal Wind Wall at the Mesa Arts Center [47] at 184. I also found a brief blog post about a Weaver & Drover design. Beccaynr (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In the article, the coffee table book Midcentury Marvels: Commercial Architecture of Phoenix 1945 to 1975 is cited 3 times, but I am not able to access the book to confirm the depth, although reviews, e.g. [48], [49], do not highlight DWL. Other sources from my search include a brief mention of Weaver & Drover [50] at 1326 with regard to shade canopies in a parking area, a brief mention of collaboration for Sky Harbor [51], a brief overview of history as the firm changed from Weaver & Drover to Drover Welch & Lindlan to DWL [52] ("one of the most sophisticated, energetic design firms in the Southwest today"), a mention of collaboration on the Dorris-Heyman Building [53], a quote from a founder about the "sophisticated, energetic design firm" [54], but I have not found multiple sources per WP:SIRS that are significant, independent, reliable, and secondary coverage of the company. Beccaynr (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 20:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 16 January 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_January_16

Leave a Reply