Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< June 01 June 03 >

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. GNG was proven, no need to prolong. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Milisavljevic[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Nieuwenhuizen[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Besharah[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actress and director, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for actresses or directors. As always, the notability test for a creative professional in film, television or theatre is not automatically passed just by verifying that she and her work exist, and instead requires analytical coverage to be paid to her and her work in media to establish that they've been externally validated as significant by people without a vested interest in her career.
I've already removed 16 inadmissible footnotes to IMDb and Facebook or Instagram posts -- but even so, the article is still referenced mainly to bad sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as blogs, directory entries, the self-published production websites of shows or films she was in, the self-published websites of film festivals that films she was in were screened at, a Twitter tweet, and on and so forth.
And even the stuff that does come from real reliable source media still largely isn't supporting her notability either -- for example, there's a source which verifies that somebody else got an Emmy nomination for his work in a miniseries that Besharah had a supporting part in, which has nothing to do with Besharah; and there are sources verifying that other films or TV shows she was in exist, but fail to mention Besharah's name in conjunction with them; and there are very brief glancing namechecks that mention her name without being about her in any non-trivial sense.
Only one footnote in the entire article (#22, "Go-for-broke performances drive Sarah Burgess's Dry Powder") actually represents a reliable source writing about Besharah's work in any substantive fashion, but one source isn't enough all by itself -- and even on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources, the most useful thing I found in ProQuest is the same article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be the subject of more proper coverage and analysis about her and her work in real media than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete using simple mentions of this name in an article about another person, or using articles that are simply passing mentions of the individual, don't help notability. Sources I find are all trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just checked the sources, can agree with nom and others Karnataka (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Gicca[edit]

Pedro Gicca (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 for a non-notable model, supported only by non-reliable/paid articles. The article in the pt.WP (their home wiki) was deleted in a AfD long ago. Fails WP:N. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 17:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 2 June 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 is consensus that RS do not group together awardees of the Hero of the Soviet Union by ethnicity in such a way. signed, Rosguill talk 01:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heroes of the Soviet Union of repressed ethnicities[edit]

List of Heroes of the Soviet Union of repressed ethnicities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH No source supports the claim of "repressed ethnicities", this is a self-invented frame by creator User:PlanespotterA320 (who has, incidentally, been permanently globally banned from all Wikimedia sites). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addition Most of the same people are already mentioned in List of North Caucasian Heroes of the Soviet Union. Plus, each of them is already mentioned in the alphabetical Category:Lists of Heroes of the Soviet Union which already existed. In short: there are many people listed at least three times. (Some are even mentioned four times due to the List of twice Heroes of the Soviet Union). Do we really need that? This is a lot of WP:OVERLAP/WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Especially the repressed part suggests a WP:POVFORK. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Ethnic groups, and Military. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There could be a better title but it is not questionable that the Soviet Union did conduct ethnic deportation of people (for example). There has been post-Soviet academic attention towards Heroes of the Soviet Union from specific ethnicities such as this article about Crimean Tatars, demonstrating that the ethnicity of Heroes of the Soviet Union is a legitimate topic. Kges1901 (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't question that those things happened, but this framing of the individual awardees as members of "repressed ethnicities" is WP:OR/WP:SYNT. We can't have that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in Google Books frames the awardees in this way. It's all original research. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course you didn't find anything, you did a very narrow search in English. Try reading a Chechen newspaper or a book specifically about the topic like Крымские татары во Второй мировой войне / А. Велиев; пер. c крымскотат. Э. Велиева. — Симферополь : Крымучпедгиз, 2009.Your claim "No source supports the claim of "repressed ethnicities", this is a self-invented frame" is absolutely wrong, even the Russian government apologized for the deporations and repressions, which are covered by English and Russian newspapers alike. Lists about discriminated against Heroes aren't unusual, there are lists of African-American, Jewish and Hispanic medal of honor recipients. There is no reasonable doubt about the ethnic background of the people on the list and that their people were "disgraced peoples"/"punished peoples"/"repressed peoples" or that they received the gold star. So please stop denying repressions and being condescending to the heroes of the soviet Union on the list.--74.215.211.214 (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        TB, this is user:PlanespotterA320. She was evading bans again. -Lemonaka‎ 20:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        lol, "stop condescending the heroes of the xyz". No one is condescending anything, we're discussing the need need for the article. Silly socks Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but keep. This seems to be a catch-all for ethnicities that don't have enough recipients for a stand-alone article like List of Tajik Heroes of the Soviet Union. The "repressed ethnicities" framing isn't good, but a rename will solve that. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should be listing/grouping/categorising Heroes of the Soviet Union "by ethnicity" in the first place, per WP:OCEGRS. We have already listed them all alphabetically, there is no need to do it all over again "by ethnicity" if [ethnicity] has [no] significant bearing on their career. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be valid to throw all non-"repressed ethnicities" into a List of Heroes of the Soviet Union of privileged ethnicities? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed article and disorganized. However, we must note that the label of "repressed" here is not a subjective adjective but an official (non-derogatory) terminology for ethnic groups that were at some point in time or another officially designated as "enemies of the people". It is also defamatory to suggest that the people on the list are not true Hero of the Soviet Union recipients. Most small nations without their own lists are not "repressed" only those who were designated as enemies of the people and fully deported per government decree qualify as repressed, so non-deported small peoples like Avar, Buryat, etc are not officially repressed peoples and have no place on any such list. On that note, I also think that lists of medal of Honor recipients (such as the lists for Jewish, African American, Hispanic medal of honor recipients) should also be deleted too.--50.5.78.234 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did/do not for one moment suggest that the people on the list are not true Hero of the Soviet Union recipients. I merely object to the SYNTH frame of "repressed ethnicities".
    I also think that lists of medal of Honor recipients (such as the lists for Jewish, African American, Hispanic medal of honor recipients) should also be deleted too. This is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument; while there may be legitimate reasons for nominating such lists for deletion as well (certainly if this AfD results in a Delete), this AfD will not be dependent on those others being nominated. Nevertheless, I have suggested above that other "by ethnicity" lists of Heroes of the Soviet Union are logical next options to consider, particularly given that we've already got alphabetical lists of the very same people. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they're already mentioned in the List of Heores of the Soviet Union, simply adding an "ethnicity" tab there would replicate this chart. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this idea in theory. However, that would involve completely re-creating those pages, which I'm not sure is worth anyone's time. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that sources group together Heroes of the Soviet Union by repressed Soviet nationalities. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The PhD Project[edit]

The PhD Project (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 (in a Wikipedia sense) scholarship programme. I haven't been able to find enough good sources to use to support an article on this (string: "the phd project"), with this piece from the Christian Science Monitor being the best source I can find via a Google search. This article has had sourcing woes since before drafting was even a thing - it's been 15 years since it's been tagged for want of sources. I know I'm likely going to be insulted, called racist, etc. for filing this deletion debate, but at this point I can't find enough sources to actually bring this up to Wikipedia's standards. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Christian Sci Monitor is ok, that's about all I can find for sourcing as well. The term is mentioned, but there are simply very few articles about them in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
University websites or blogs, or the project's page itself, that's about all there is. Notable cause for sure, they just haven't had any media attention in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 in AI[edit]

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

Doesn’t merit an article, no references. Perhaps merge with AI? Dylan | ✉ | ✓  21:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One under 30-edit account, an IP, and one other account agreeing on the year's page≠consensus. Also we post news events, not promotional spam about AI, on year pages. Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This subject is particularly affected by recentism and WP:CRYSTAL. The article indiscriminately pushes recent contributions to generative AI as being important, when in reality it is WP:TOOSOON to make conclusions. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. This article feels both pointless and promotional. Dawnbails (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are more than two dozen articles just like this (see Template:C21 year in topic) for many facets of 2023. Given how AI has played a very significant role in 2023, which basically every reliable source on the planet has mentioned, I say we keep it! TheAwesomeAtom (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I severely fail to understand the argument that this topic is promotional. Indeed, the items included in the article's current revision are disproportionately new model releases from megacorps; there is no mention of any open projects whatsoever! I cannot say it forcefully enough: it's bad. However, these are problems with the article, not the topic. If it is really that bad, then we can just BLAR it to 2023 and deal with it later. I don't think you are all thinking this through very thoroughly. jp×g 03:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rationale to delete this article is WP:TOOSOON. It cannot be said yet what contributions to AI in 2023 were important, aside from the obvious one (GPT-4). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't know we suddenly decided to waive WP:PROMO when it comes to AI, and I have yet to see one negative item about AI in this article to balance things out or even move the other side of the scale. In its current form, it's a PR WP:COATRACK. Nate • (chatter) 02:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Heavily affected by recency bias. Can be revived at a later date when we have context of how AI developments panned out/which were important. Right now there are too many marketers hyping the subject up
Carolina Heart (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disappointed to see so much negativity here, and frankly ignorance, about what is an extremely important topic. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I !voted delete but I agree with your sentiment. Unfortunately, all relevant Wikipedia policy like WP:CRYSTAL, WP:DELAY and WP:TOOSOON says to wait to confirm if such an article is needed (and to draftify it in the meantime). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: by necessity, nearly everything cited on the page is WP:PRIMARY: as others have pointed out, it's too soon to write a properly analytical article which would understand the impact of these events, and so be more than WP:NOTNEWS. However, it would be good to see the article rewritten in a few years when that is no longer so. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus and because no one has considered the nominator's suggestion to Merge the article. There's also a mention of Redirecting it which might be a solution for those arguing that it is simply TOOSOON for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Carolina Fox and UndercoverClassicist. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Redirect is pointless because this is not a search term. Merge is also pointless as this is a list of news and there is no content to merge. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with UndercoverClassicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above points made on recency bias and reading like a promo article for various AI companies; I think its clear when you compare this page's overly detailed material with other {topic in 2023} articles. Agree with user above, redirect is not necessary while a merge would be difficult and would result in way too detailed information about various companies on the AI page. A merge could occur for those with articles such as the ChatGPT (which takes up so much of the article) and Bard entries, although the information here is already restated on those main articles. Yeoutie (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Robinson[edit]

Raheem Robinson (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 believe this article fails to meet GNG.

This subject played five few games for the Cayman Islands national team but has generated little significant coverage. This article in the Cayman Sports Buzz probably counts as significant coverage, but it is only one piece.

Besides this, I can only find some brief mentions in match reports and other routine coverage searching online and in the Cayman Compass, Caymanian Times etc.

He also played basketball in his youth and this generated some hits. I still don't think this is enough coverage to demonstrate the subject meets GNG. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:37, 2 June 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 Porcupine Tree discography. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Death & Mussolini[edit]

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

PROD'd because I found no claim to notability for this release, but someone removed that PROD claiming this is "potentially notable" and also to consider alternatives. Having already looked, I'm still convinced there's no potential here, but I do agree that this would be better redirected to Porcupine Tree than outright deleted. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Porcupine Tree would be the optimal placement because the EP gets mentioned in the Origins (1987–1990) section. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Porcupine Tree discography - As someone familiar with the band, I can say that this EP is a source of much fancruft, but that is not enough for an independent article. Its unusual nature is already discussed at the band's main article, and if anyone searches for it, the band's discography article is the logical place to go per policy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Porcupine Tree discography Suonii180 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Porcupine Tree discography. The claim to notability is that this is the first release of what has become a very notable artist and band. Alas, I could not find enough reliable sources to make a strong Keep argument here. ~Kvng (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vardan Adzemian[edit]

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

Article about former semi-pro footballer who once signed for the Los Angeles Galaxy, but comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Adzemian never played competitively for the Galaxy, and there is no in-depth coverage of him at all. There are some routine/trivial mentions in match reports and contract announcements, but nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, only source is the league table which does not constitute WP:SIGCOV Karnataka (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Draycott[edit]

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

Article about former non-league/semi-pro footballer who made a handful of appearances in the US third division, and which fails WP:GNG. THe online coverage of Draycott is mostly routine/trivial stuff like match reports and signing announcements, or lacks independence (e.g., pieces from the FA or National Football League). The best coverage I could find is from local paper Ventura County Star, but even that is highly promotional and leans heavily on an interview with the subject. There is nothing else that approaches WP:SIGCOV. There was a previous AfD in 2009, which was withdrawn by the nominator long before WP:NSPORTS2022 deprecated NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete: Notable didn't work on this article. It can't reach under WP:SIGCOV. CastJared (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete He certainly had a career, I am not sure how notable being the top scorer for the Youth FA Cup actually is, it's not even sourced in the article, don't know if that can be confirmed. However, I feel in agreement with the assessment, there are some hits there for him, but the notability is just too weak for me for what is needed to even pass WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SKP Zayn[edit]

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

This article about a non-notable YouTuber started off as a redirect, was nominated for discussion, turned into an article mid-discussion, WP:PRODed, and de-PRODed—but still fails to meet WP:BIO. The citations in the article appear to refer to a different, similarly-named person and a separate YouTube channel. - Eureka Lott 18:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Pakistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: I think this YouTuber doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, no need to commence WP:ILIKEIT. CastJared (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hindustan Times ref is barely 10 lines of text with images taking up most of the article, sources I find are all gossip sites or un-RS. Lack of notability for this youtube personality. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oneeleng Radikara[edit]

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

PROD by User:JoeNMLC Cite has one mention in game statistics; lacks WP:SIGCOV; Lacks sufficient citations to reliable sources

PROD was removed without any significant coverage being added. The only source that I can find is Mmegi, a trivial mention. No decent coverage found while searching "Six Radikara" either. Radikara seems to fail WP:SPORTBASIC. In fact, he's so non-notable that we don't even have a date of birth for him! There is nowhere to redirect or merge to as he is not mentioned in any other articles nor should he be. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rolv Eriksrud[edit]

Rolv Eriksrud (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 find references to him in Norwegian media but only in relation to taking part in races (i.e. listing/mentioning him as a participant). No real RS and no sign of any SIGCOV. Didn't seem to achieve notability in ski mountaineering or cross-country skiing (i.e. couldn't find him in the Olympics). Can't see any real claim to WP:GNG. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Luc Prieur[edit]

Jean-Luc Prieur (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)

He gets namechecked in blogs and some lists of ski mountaineering competitions in France, and he is still an active skiing guide. Outside of that, no WP:RS on him as a notable character, no sign of any SIGCOV, and didn't seem to achieve any notability in ski mountaineering, itself a niche sport. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fynn Gutzeit[edit]

Fynn Gutzeit (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)

Minimal reliable coverage, fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bangwe[edit]

Richard Bangwe (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 would have preferred to PROD this but it looks like most PRODs are being removed currently so I'll AfD it to save the hassle. Similar case to Koegathe Rabithome. Do not merge or redirect anywhere as he is not notable enough to be mentioned at Botswana national football team. According to NFT, which seems to be the only source I can find on him, he made an inconsequential 8 minute cameo against Lesotho and has done nothing since. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 as far as I can see; Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigrid Tomio[edit]

Sigrid Tomio (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)

Can find very little RS (outside of namechecks in non-RS blogs) and no item of SIGCOV on this person. I can verify that she exists (via Facebook and lists of results), but little else. She did not achieve notability in ski mountaineering, and ski mountaineering is of itself, a very niche sport. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Rassat[edit]

Thierry Rassat (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)

Can't find any RS or item of SIGCOV on this person. I can verify that he exists (via Facebook and a list of results), but little else. Never achieved any notability, and ski mountaineering is itself a very niche sport. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 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. Procedural keep since the nominator was indeffed and no one else is arguing for non-keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tudor (disambiguation)[edit]

Edward Tudor (disambiguation) (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)

Contains completely nothing to disambiguate, only a see also section and the name Edward Tudor explination. Does not need to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoMommusStinkus (talk • contribs)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the nominating user is currently blocked. No opinion on the disambiguation page. Grachester (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see an issue with this disambiguation page. Ted (a common nickname for Edward) and Edward Tudor-Pole, in addition to the British king, are all valid names. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: two people, apart from the king, who could reasonably be looked for as Edward Tudor. PamD 07:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a valid entry was also deleted, now restored. Creator wasn't informed of this discussion. Nothing to be gained from deletion, this is WP:USEFUL. Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2022 MNL statistics[edit]

List of 2022 MNL statistics (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:NOTSTATS violation, exactly all the same reasons highlighted in the AFDs for the 2023 and 2020 seasons also apply here. This should be an uncontroversial deletion, but the prod was removed, hence the need for this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 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 List of Ninja Gaiden characters. Star Mississippi 02:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Momiji (Ninja Gaiden)[edit]

Momiji (Ninja Gaiden) (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's entire reception section is quite literally nothing but listicles, failing SIGCOV and showing no signs of notability on its own. It's basically a typical Niemti article, just with even less meat on the bone. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Redirect I cannot find any Sigcov per WP:Before. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 15:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It would be a great help if someone could recreate List of Ninja Gaiden characters and add some sources to make it viable as a list. It would be perfect if targeted there. Sexiness/unsexiness is a pretty bad metric for establishing notability, unless scholars have specifically discussed that aspect of the character. There does not seem to be significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. That's a horrible way to measure notability. But, unfortunately like you said if reliable sources talk about it it counts. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 20:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be distinguished between "talking about it" in a critical sense - i.e. analyzing thematic significance/commercial impact of their attractiveness - or just saying "this person is sexiest". The latter can potentially run up against WP:INDISCRIMINATE if there is no evidence they are important outside of that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but only upon the creation of the aforementioned proposed list. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not merge it into the Dead or Alive character list, since it's the same continuity? If Rachel were merged it would go there as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:40, 3 June 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. Star Mississippi 02:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval[edit]

List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval (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)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at the Wankhede Stadium and other such AfDs, fails WP:NLIST. A fairly common event (80 tests, 187 centuries, that's more than 2 per test: I have trouble thinking of another sport where we would create lists of things which were this common), which explains why it isn't really the subject of significant attention (individual centuries get noted, but the vast vast majority of sources, and the only ones that really seem to care about the list subject as a whole, are statistical databases only). Note that the "further reading" book "100 Not Out: A Century of Cricket on the Adelaide Oval" is not about this topic, but about 100 years of cricket at the ground. Fram (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Australia. Fram (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the book Fram refers to includes a discussion of centuries at the ground - it doesn't just have to be about centuries. Deus et lex (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP - In 2016 this page was a Featured Wikipedia List, appearing on the main page on 31 October 31 2016. And yet now we have a proposal to delete it because the "event" that it lists is too "common" to be of interest. This strikes me as a change of attitude by one editor rather than a considered opinion of the page's worth. I believe we need a much stronger explanation of why this page needs to be deleted. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a featured list or featured article says a lot about the quality of writing and the completeness of the article, and nothing about the notability of the subject. There have been featured articles which afterwards were deleted (and the bar for a FA is significantly higher than for a FL). The reason for deletion is that the actual list topic, the list of centuries at this ground, hasn´t been the topic of attention from reliable, independent, non-database sources. Just like in the other Afd I linked, and in the multiple Afds linked from that one. While match reports will note a century, no sources seem to care about the centuries as a group. A bit like in soccer, match reports indicate who scored, but a list of international goals at stadium x or y is of no interest, as it is a common occurrence, something which happens too often: and something which isn´t important for the ground (a list of centuries by person is much more logical, as they are highlights in their career: but the ground has no bearing on the event, it´s not as if this oval makes it harder or easier or more exceptional, it´s just the location). Basically it´s not a defining characteristic of the oval, and not a defining characteristic of the centuries. Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR.This is just a huge collection of matches, records and stats consolidated directly from ESPNCricinfo's statsguru. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete are we going to start listing soccer goals next? Starting to wonder if we need undeniable, non-borderline, individual notability to even qualify for good/featured article status because recently some “”good”” articles that were nothing but fancruft also ended up at AfD. Dronebogus (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of positions of authority[edit]

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

Not even a list of positions of authority, but rather an exceedingly poor attempt at creating an “outline of authority” article (which like most outline articles would be fairly useless) that has no scope, organization or purpose besides duplicating the category on positions for authority. Dronebogus (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What kind of authority? Military, personal, business, religion? This list makes no sense. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Editors were less confident that List of Turkic dynasties and countries couldn't be written in a useful and policy-compliant fashion, but there was general consensus that the current state of these articles is unusable WP:OR and no suitable targets for a redirect currently exist. signed, Rosguill talk 01:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkic dynasties and countries[edit]

List of Turkic dynasties and countries (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 am also nominating the following related page because of the same issues:
Comparison of the Turkic states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, fail WP:LISTCRITERIA (the lists equivalent of WP:NONDEFINING), and long series of precedents confirming that language family is WP:NONDEFINING for countries, territories, and individual people:

I think the evidence speaks for itself. I'm happy to nominate any other Lists of countries/territories/people by language family if anyone would like to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF. For now, I rest my case. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per overwhelming evidence, nothing more to add. Dronebogus (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If this could get deleted too that would be great (List of Iranian dynasties and countries). --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm planning to nominate that one next, amongst other lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It's greatly appreciated. Feel free to ping me when you do, as I'll gladly support you. For years I've been thinking about nominating these type of articles for deletion, but due to a mix of doubt that it would go through and laziness I never did that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw You don't have to separately nominate it for deletion. You can just add that article to this nomination per WP:MULTIAFD. Aintabli (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I'm using these two lists as a test case that is focused entirely on previously established "Turkic" precedents (which has a strong consensus on Turkic countries/territories/individuals categories, and on Turkic individuals lists). This is the first "List of [language family] countries" nom in this series. I want to make sure it succeeds. I wanna make sure we're all on the same page before I nominate more of the same type. Multiple nominations run the risk of receiving a lot of opposition if there is no clear precedent. But I can tell you already that I've got about 9 other such lists waiting in line to be AfD'd once this one receives enough support. Thanks for suggesting it though! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Turkic peoples, which covers everything in that article which is possibly worth keeping. No objection to history deletion. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got no objection to salvaging/recycling potentially relevant information elsewhere. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But I'm opposed to keeping the redirect because this may lend an evidently illegitimate concept legitimacy. Redirects imply a certain kind of legitimacy, just that a topic is better known under a different name, or is not notable enough for its own article but notable enough as a section in another article. I don't want to give off that impression. There is a reason of strongly established principle that we shouldn't frame matters in this WP:CROSSCAT manner of language family + country, and I think this includes redirects, as well as categories, lists and templates previously deleted (as outlined above). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad and essentially a WP:CFORK with Turkic peoples. gidonb (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of the Turkic states is somehwat similar though not identical. It should also be deleted. These countries should be discussed in Western Asia and in Central Asia sperately and articles on the Organization of Turkic States and International Organization of Turkic Culture already exist. There is no need to repeat every piece of data time and again in different combinations. For the record, my concern here is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as this pulled together nations that are in either of two organizations. Better to stick to continents, subcontinents, and recognized regions within subcontinents (which are all the examples under see also). gidonb (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Just to be clear, I co-nominated Comparison of the Turkic states in this AfD. Some people seem to have missed that, and the creator of that article thought I made a mistake, but I deliberately co-nominated them. This is about arbitrary [[WP:CROSSCAT] groupings of "Turkic" countries, territories, dynasties, states, rump states, khaganates, khanates, hordes/ulus, emirates, sultanates, caliphates, kingdoms, empires, republics, polities, oblasts, etc.: the whole shebang. If I missed any such lists, please say so. (16 Great Turkic Empires might be a legitimate topic, but I'm gonna look into that one, too. Anatolian beyliks seems geography-based rather than language family-based, so that one seems fine. Turco-Persian wars may be an arbitrary grouping of "Göktürks" and "Ottomans" as "Turkic", as well as "Sasanians", "Safavids" and "Qajars" as "Persian".) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Will renaming the article as “Comparison of members of the Organization of Turkic States” satisfy you? Joseph (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might, if sources are not WP:SYNTHed the way they are right now. That might save the article in the short term. But you raised a valid point at the talk page about the likewise dubious legitimacy of Comparison of the Baltic states, Comparison of the Benelux countries and Comparison of the Nordic countries, which already have the same issues as the reworked article you are proposing would still have. This group of 4 articles is still vulnerable to deletion in the long term (which I would not oppose, even though I reside in one of the countries concerned; it's just questionable whether these articles have encyclopedic added value). But that decision does not lie solely with me, but the community. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for “List of Turkic dynasties and countries”. The article is here for 19 years, what has changed now? It doesn’t list any inapproriate content, nothing is copyrighted or infringed. It doesnt steal any bits. The term “Turkic” is used both politically and academically to denote linguistics and ethnicities. True or not, Turkic states (TR, AZ, KZ, KG, UZ and TM) and Hungary supports this historic affiliation between these states (Turan in case of Hungary). I see no harm in such a grouping.--Joseph (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is here for 19 years WP:OLDARTICLE.
    It doesn’t list any inapproriate content, nothing is copyrighted or infringed. It doesnt steal any bits. No, but those are not the problems I'm highlighting.
    The term “Turkic” is used both politically and academically to denote linguistics and ethnicities. Yes, but we are talking about states, countries and dynasties here, not linguistics and ethnicities.
    True or not, Turkic states (TR, AZ, KZ, KG, UZ and TM) and Hungary supports this historic affiliation between these states (Turan in case of Hungary). The current governments of these current states only do so through the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), which is a modern political organisation. Governments can make lots of statements that do not have to be taken seriously by an encyclopaedia. E.g. the government of Hungary cannot make "the Hungarian people" or the Republic of Hungary "Turkic" just by signing a document, ignoring linguistics. Incidentally, are you going to include Hungary if you were to rename the article Comparison of the Turkic states to Comparison of members of the Organization of Turkic States? If not, why not? Why haven't you included Hungary as an OTS observer state (since 2018) in Template:Supranational Turkic Bodies, even though you did include Turkmenistan (since 2021)? Somehow it seems that you are unwilling to include Hungary, even though it is just as much an observer state of the OTS as Turkmenistan.
    I see no harm in such a grouping. WP:NOHARM. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for “Comparison of Turkic States”. First, this is different article, thus I belive it deserves individual nomination for further discussion. It’s content is not inappropriate or copyrighted. It gives a summary for “Turkic States” in general, no other wiki pages gives this summary. For classification; Comparison of the Baltic states doesnt list biggest states in the Baltics: Sweden or Finland, because the term Baltic states are not used for them. There is a grouping used internationally. Similarly, there are tons of links that groups Turkic states. I see no harm keeping the article either.--Joseph (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I belive it deserves individual nomination for further discussion. It is valid to nominate multiple articles which have the same issues. In fact, it is encouraged (as several other users have also suggested that I should nominate even more articles).
    not inappropriate or copyrighted. Copyright is not the problem.
    a summary for “Turkic States” in general This is the problem: there are no objective criteria by which to identify "Turkic states", and as the long list of precedents above show, there is consensus we should not group, list or categorise countries or territories by language family.
    [What about] Comparison of the Baltic states[?] WP:OTHERSTUFF. I told you already at the talk page that if you've got a problem with Comparison of the Baltic states, Comparison of the Benelux countries and Comparison of the Nordic countries, you can nominate them for deletion as well. It's not a relevant argument to Keep Comparison of the Turkic states against the objection of being an arbitary WP:CROSSCAT between countries and language family, as strong consensus in previous precedents has established.
    Similarly, there are tons of links that groups Turkic states. Those may have to be removed next, depending on the outcome.
    I see no harm keeping the article either. WP:NOHARM. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comparison of the Turkic states, weak delete List of Turkic dynasties and countries. I think it may be possible to have a policy compliant article on Turkic dynasties based on sources like this, but both articles are WP:OR messes and would need complete rewrite/TNT in any case. Ultimately we should not host these "comparison" articles unless there are specifically a significant number of sources actually "comparing" and those are what the article is based on. (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles. I support deleting similar articles/lists with very same issues (POV/OR mess); e.g. List of Iranian dynasties and countries. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will nominate them next once this one receives enough support. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comparison of the Turkic states. I am not fond of List of Turkic dynasties and countries either, it feels like a WP:SYNTH job in its current state, but I am less sure that nothing could come of the topic, and am unsure if the current content needs to be merged into some other locations. CMD (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you name a list article with a similar scope which does not have the same or similar issues as List of Turkic dynasties and countries? I'm open to ATD, I just don't see any. And many people above are already saying similar list articles should be nominated next. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:24, 9 June 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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of blast furnaces[edit]

List of blast furnaces (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:NLIST. Considering that blast furnaces have existed for centuries all across the world, this seems like a completely random choice with no clear inclusion criteria for these individually not notable furnaces. Was there anything special about e.g. the 1905-1907 period in the US that it deserves a separate section? Fram (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

same notability guidelines apply which apply to "List of ship launches in XXXX" or "List of shipwrecks in XXXX".
The more the merrier. All blast furnaces are supposed to be included. Nowakki (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rather useless synthesis if it only covers the USA. I suppose some furnaces are notable if they're preserved on the NRHP or the like as industrial heritage (and I believe some steelworks are, both in the USA and in Germany). Needless list otherwise with no indication as to why these are notable, no technical discussion, no historical context given. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list is supposed to cover all countries. Nowakki (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any idea how incredibly many blast furnaces there were? I just did a rather random search, and e.g. the small city of Chimay, in Belgium, had 9 blast furnaces in the 17th century[2]. These kind of small blast furnaces were omnipresent. This is not a reliable source, but if correct then there are at least nearly 500 operating blast furnace sites in the world, and this is just a fraction of the list of former ones (and probably not a complete list of current ones either). Fram (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list can if needed by broken down into one list per century. Or broken up in a variety of other ways. Nowakki (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But they were so common and in many cases just ignored because of that, that such lists would be a totally random selection of some examples. We already have List of preserved historic blast furnaces, which is a well-defined, limited list of blast furnaces which are considered important enough to preserve. Fine, good topic for a list. But an open-ended list or series of lists for all of them? Please no. Fram (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please no is not in any wikipedia content guideline. Nowakki (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also, the "list of blast furnaces built in the 1940s" is not indiscriminate and open-ended and such a list can be looked up by anyone interested using a chronological list of all blast furnaces. Nowakki (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was about to say draftify to allow it to be converted to a list of notable blast furnaces, but we already have one at List of preserved historic blast furnaces. A list of all blast furnaces is simple implausible to do here. Reywas92Talk 15:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a list of ship launches implausible to do here? Nowakki (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's any old random boats, yes the list is useless. We need to cover important things, not trivia lists of every type of ship that ever hit the water. Same idea here, we either need some discussion of why each listed blast furnace is important, a scientific discussion of a particular type of blast furnaces or something along those lines. This could simply be a list of red cars, the list is too large and too trivial to be useful to anyone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    List of Liberty ships (A–F)
    List of Liberty ships (G–Je)
    List of Liberty ships (Je–L)
    List of Liberty ships (M–R)
    List of Liberty ships (S–Z)
    i believe the number is 2700 or so total.
    can we have this discussion when there are 1000 entries in the blast furnace list? Nowakki (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • feel free to nominate them for deletion as well, most of the ships likely aren't notable. I don't have the capacity to review each list at this time.
    Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i would really appreciate it, if you spent your available capacity on somebody else.
    i don't even know why i have to jerk off so many people to get a bunch of dates approved for inclusion in an encyclopedia. it seems one has to first build a lobby of people interested in steelmaking to gain permission to rescue wikipedia from its depth of ignorance.
    how about we approve the list on the less than zero chance that it will be useful to whoever rewrites History of the steel industry (1850–1970) to suck less. Nowakki (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why not “list of grain elevators” or “list of canals” if we’re going to cover every mundane construction in history? This is clearly a vanity project of user:Nowakki since they’re the only editor and have been incessantly bludgeoning this discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    lack of contribution to a page that is less than 48 hours old is evidence to you that somebody is engaging in a vanity project?
    i do NOT endorse with this new article a list of grain elevators or any other type of possibly useless list.
    if you want to object to grain elevators and canals you have to wait for somebody to make a list of grain elevators or canals. Nowakki (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    List of windmills Nowakki (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently read a book about destroyers.
    It had an appendix which listed all the destroyers built in the United States in WW2 in an appendix. It was just a book, not even an encyclopedia.
    do you think that person was vain? if the list was useful to me at the time, should i still throw the book away because of possible issues of vanity? Nowakki (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: how long is this application to host a Trill symbiont going to last? I need to know at what point i have to start nominating other lists on wikipedia for deletion to make a point. I would rather avoid doing that. Nowakki (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One: WHAT?! Two: WP:POINT Dronebogus (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is the nomination of a list on wikipedia for deletion considered a disruption of wikipedia?
presumably i would pick one that deserves it for ulterior reasons. then i am clear? or not? Nowakki (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree that as currently scoped, this is not suitable for an article—the list will be far too long as a single page. While we're allowed to have incomplete work in mainspace, this is so incomplete as to be misleading to the innocent reader--like a "List of sailing ships" that had ten examples, all post-1800. I think it would be best to move it to user space and think about suitable ways to partition it. I would probably start by breaking it down into lists by continent. Those could then be subdivided in a number of ways. In a strictly North American context, the most meaningful partition would probably be (independent) charcoal furnaces vs. coal and coke furnaces vs. integrated furnaces at steelworks, but that would probably be different in a European context, where coke replaced charcoal much earlier; a chronological subdivision would be more arbitrary but more clear-cut and consistent.
The additional arguments made here against lists of blast furnaces in general are, however, utterly unconvincing. To inject some numbers into the discussion, Gordon, in American Iron, cites J. P. Lesley's statistics on U.S. iron production in 1856 and enumerates blast furnaces: 416 charcoal furnaces and 164 coal and coke furnaces for a total of 580. This was already well into the trend of smaller, isolated charcoal furnaces being replaced by fewer, larger coal- and coke-fueled furnaces at more central points. I think tripling that to account for abandoned 1700s charcoal furnaces and late 19th-century merchant furnaces and steelworks is not an unreasonable way to estimate U.S. capacity, which would give us a figure of around 1800 furnaces. Round up to 2000, perhaps, to include Canada?
Compare that to 3,243 counties or equivalents in the U.S., each of which has its own article, or the 4,110 ships in the U.S. merchant fleet in the single year 1920.[3] Maybe it's different in a European context (although Chimay is in Wallonia, a major ironmaking region, so I suspect it's on the high end of the distribution rather than a representative example as implied above). Anyway, this is not an unreasonable list size if sub-partitioned by century. Given the existence of independent reliable sources such as J. P. Lesley [4] and James Moore Swank [5] compiling lists of North American furnaces and ironworks, with individual description, WP:LISTN is certainly met for a list of North American blast furnaces, and trying to impose inclusion criteria beyond verifiability is not appropriate.
American iron and steelmaking different significantly in practice from European due, among other things, to the differing quality and availability of fuels and ores. Gordon, aforementioned, wrote specifically on American ironmaking, this paper specifically treats American blast furnace practice, and I've linked above two works specifically enumerating American blast furnaces. The asseration that a list of North American blast furnaces is a "rather useless synthesis" is not tenable. Choess (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could rename the article to "List of blast furnaces with hot blast, large stoves, coke ovens and skip cars, of more than 100 tons per day". not sure if that is against the rules. PS: trade journals in 1905 and later don't say "charcoal" anywhere. Nowakki (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. While in its current state the article is gratuitously incomplete, it doesn't seem to me like the topic of blast furnaces is inherently non-notable. Per what Choess says above, it's been covered before, and at some decent length. Obviously, one article that lists every blast furnace in the world would be impractical and unmanageable, but I think that limiting the scope could produce something very good. We should let this user cook... jp×g 19:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept of a blast furnace is certainly notable, but I disagree that a list of all blast furnaces, no qualifiers, is appropriate. No objection to a more narrowly focused list. CarringtonMist (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm ok with a Draft if we can carefully select which criteria we're using. The user Noawakki appears blocked, so I'm not sure who would take on the project. I'm certainly not interested. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is redundant in this niche topic area with a better written and more focused article List_of_preserved_historic_blast_furnaces. My understanding is Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE online repository or dump of trivia. I see comments mentioning that other list-based articles exist and I agree that some of those should be nominated for deletion too. The article is very new so if the decision is Draftify, I am fine with that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 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 Half-Life (series). (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Headcrab[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG and has been neglected for decade. I cannot find WP:SIGCOV especially scholarly books about this species. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 188.141.48.144 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why? you don't like crowbars, or you oppose the deletion? Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote. You need to give a stance or you're ignored in the final decision. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a large number of references to the article, and I believe it is enough to support notability. Zxcvbnm, Kung Fu Man, Ferret, and Sergecross73: Will you reconsider the article's notability? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you have about 6 days before this ends, do you think you can build those sources into the article and give it a proper reception section?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubt that he will further, most of the additions doesn't help the article's notability since those were just merchandise and promotion stuff. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 16:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I've added all I could find. I realize some of it is low-quality and routine, but I think there are a few pieces of good SIGCOV to establish notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This mostly just looks like trivial listicle stuff. Pretty certain Wikipedia doesn't treat Cracked as reliable either. I don't think there's enough here to change my mind. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, cracked is crap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the AFD closer, as I've been pinged to this keep vote: The sources added do not sway my view. This still fails SIGCOV and should/can be merged. -- ferret (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy is bizarre, he nominated a bunch of articles for deletion before and even tagged notability template on notable characters like Nakoruru, but now he wanted to keep an article that is much... worst? GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that this should be notable, so I tried to save it. Looking back, it's in kinda poor condition, so I think I'm going to go Weak Merge. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the added sources establish notability. Merko (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which ones are you seeing as SIGCOV exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [6] [7], described by Engadget as the signature enemy of Half-Life [8], and influential in video games came after HL [9] [5 (not RS)] Merko (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? This is SIGCOV? The first is 90% regurgitation of social media posts, with no commentary of its own. The second is joke article about throwing objects in Half-Life Alyx. It makes no commentary *about* head crabs. And the third literally makes a passing mention as "the signature enemy" and never mentions or makes any further commentary. None of this is SIGCOV. -- ferret (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't Characters of Half-Life be a better merge target than Half-Life (series)? QuicoleJR (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's where it should merge to. -- ferret (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Headcrabs are not a character, they are a species. AFAIK, Lamarr is the only headcrab that features as an actual minor character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that page is for distinct characters, not species. Merko (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a section on the main HL article about reoccurring elements? Merge it there. Dronebogus (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just make a section for species, like the Mario characters list does. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celestine Wasserfall[edit]

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

Only cite contains the athlete's game statistics; Lacks WP:SIGCOV and sufficient citations to reliable sources per WP:GNG. JoeNMLC (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodin tool[edit]

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

Not notable, no clear official website with only 26 reviews on SourceForge, fails WP:GNG and sounds promotional, article also has many issues with the last significant edit in February 2016. Hadal1337 (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – referenced in and used for many peer-reviewed research publications, and not just by the developers. See multiple pages of references starting from this Google Scholar search demonstrating WP:GNG. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sympathy with the nom as it is a poor article, but per Jonathan Bowen, has SIGCOV in research papers. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely needs work and is a poor article, however the research papers linked to by Jonathan Bowen show notability. I think the closer should add the research papers as refs somewhere in the article (if they haven't been already) and then tag for copyediting. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — assuming this is a "keep", I am willing to work on improving the article with appropriate references in due course. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Multiple issues tags have been left on the page since April 2022, with no updates at all. I sincerely doubt Jonathan Bowen will be the one to "improve the article in due course". Also, with regards to the peer-reviewed publications, there is only one significant article with 811 citations, the majority of articles have less than 30 citations, even so, articles published since 2019 have on average less than 1 citation.
Hadal1337 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hare[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG, can't find any credible articles of this person online. Hadal1337 (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. signed, Rosguill talk 01:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Throat-clear[edit]

Throat-clear (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)

Throat-clear should be deleted pursuant to WP:Del-Reaso as it is not content suitable for an encyclopedia. WP:DICTIONARY, we are an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. 3/4 of the citations in this article are from sources that de-facto constitute dictionaries, and this article contains barely any notable text besides a dictionary definition. Alexcs114 (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree, this is an extended DICDEF. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:WORDISSUBJECT and there is opportunity to expand the article. For instance, history, movies, illness, psychology. Here is one source for psychology. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly needs more work, if it's going to be kept Alexcs114 :) 11:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a possible move to Throat clearing per WP:COMMONNAME. Throat clearing is a well studied topic on both a biological and psychological level with many hits on scholar. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (I came here from the ARS listing.) I agree with both keep comments above, including the rename to "clearing". This is much more than what the nomination claims, with significance in medicine and literature as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A mainly medical topic that passes GNG. Also a topic within human communication, as a nonverbal message. Not a dictionary-type page, and not a WORDISSUBJECT topic.—Alalch E. 20:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Bank PLC[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine coverage of incorporation. scope_creepTalk 08:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seward Polar Bear Jump-Off[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet GNG. Gnews search yields very little. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Gracias High School[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unfortunate that a 60 yrs old institution in a metro poly does not have enough independent coverage. I would support restoration of the article if any pre-internet period offline independent sources found ever. It's a reluctant delete but does not seem to meet WP:NSCHOOL even through my liberal view . Bookku (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not enough SIGCOV sources found to meet NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:03, 8 June 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. Happy to provide the history under a redirect if the merger target is eventually created. Star Mississippi 02:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tajamul Islam[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tajamul Islam (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 fighter. Orphan article. Does not meet criteria for WP:NKICK, WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajamul Islam

  • Delete per nom. Not notable.Nswix (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs total re-write. Yes success in junior sporting events is not generally notable but the article fails to show that she has been getting WP:SIGCOV as: “the youngest kickboxer in the world" and "the first Kashmiri girl to represent India".[10], that a 2016 BBC article called her "the troubled region's newest heroine." and one who has "created history in Indian-administered Kashmir."[11]. Her story has been called "a shining beacon of hope for young Kashmiri women"[12] There are quite a few more RS that have nothing to do with sport results but with her being a role model for women: "On the occasion of Women’s Equality Day (...) Kashmir Tajamul Islam delivered a motivational talk to inspire the women folk to take up sports as a way of life."[13] She was made an ambassador for the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao scheme, a program addressing gender discrimination and women empowerment by the Government of India.[14], She has been listed in the “Rising Beyond the Ceiling: 100 Inspiring Muslim Women of Jammu & Kashmir 2023” [15], Mehbooba Mufti called her “a role a model for the youth”,[16] and Amit Shah current Minister of Home Affairs of India called her “India’s talented daughter” and “an inspiration to every Indian"[17]. I think this shows GNG. Lewolka (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: Keeping would need rewrite but seem to have consistent media coverage over the years. Secondly there seems enough scope to create women's sport section in the article Sports in Jammu and Kashmir and merging this article there also can be considered. (Merge option could have been considered as WP:AFDBEFORE also) Bookku (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She still doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. I also am not seeing what I would consider significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. Reporting of results doesn't meet WP:GNG and junior or "sub-junior" titles also don't show notability to me. Papaursa (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Julien[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR; she’s only had one significant role in The Bling Ring. Needs two or more significant roles in order to be eligible. Her role in The Dark Knight Rises isn’t significant enough. The Film Creator (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis High School, Amravati[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. No GNG-level sources were surfaced by the minimum searches mentioned in WP:CONRED. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:40, 2 June 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Mudd[edit]

Lee Mudd (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)

Promotional and almost certainly autobiographical article. Subject fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC BlameRuiner (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - weak delete Looking at the top few sources, there maybe something there [18], [19], [20], however I don't think it's WP:LASTING. Govvy (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @Govvy:, Besides the sources above, I found [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30], among many many more sources. Clearly significant figure in Northern Irish football with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. Article needs a serious re-write. GiantSnowman 20:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Das osmnezz: Those additional pings won't work, you would need a new sentence. As for the other sources, I am still not impressed. I don't see anything beyond a said few bits, so he in football and an agent, I don't see anything beyond that regardless by the amount of citations you have shown above. I still feel WP:LASTING is there for a reason in wikipedia and it applies to this bio article. Govvy (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just linked an event criteria and even then his coverage ranges from his playing career in New Zealand and France and being an agent over years... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the sources presented above are enough. The article needs rewriting though, it was probably written by the subject, considering the username. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some of the coverage of Mudd's former career as a footballer toes at the line of significant depth with sources like [31] and [32]; everything about his agent career is pure PR churn. All told I'm not quite seeing GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 02:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is there proof that "everything" about his agent career is "pure PR churn"... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; the available sources are not in-depth coverage, are derivative of club press releases or are interviews with the subject that contain very little secondary analysis. The best source appears to be the NIWorld piece from 23 November 2013, but even that leans heavily on an interview with the subject. There is also a lot of PR puffery in many of these sources; the claim that he played for Olympique Lyon is especially self-promotional as Mudd only appears to have been on trial. A lot of this reminds me of an American soccer player who never played professionally but had trials at a lot of Scandanavian and South American clubs, and someone with an apparent COI wrote a Wikipedia article about him which ultimately was removed after 2 AfDs. Jogurney (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre comparison... this guy has way more sources over a period of years than the guy you mentioned above (Jordan Older). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not bizarre. As far as anyone can tell, Mudd's played zero competitive matches for Stockport County, Bolton, Brighton or Lyon, yet these clubs get mentions in most of the articles about him. Someone has been feeding that promotional information to the article authors (user:Muddy10 might know ;)), not so different from what we saw with Older. Jogurney (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bizarre comparison to Jordan Older, who I could find zero sources about, let alone articles from a main newspaper in his country... Seriously... many of the articles about Mudd published during his playing career are from the Belfast Telegraph, considered to be the main evening newspaper in Northern Ireland (it's not a tabloid either)... on top of that, some of the sources from his playing career are about his time in New Zealand, where he definitely played games... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am also unimpressed with the sources above. Passing mentions, transactional coverage, etc. do not constitute GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of SIGCOV Alvaldi (talk) 19:24, 4 June 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 Bandini Automobili to ensure attribution, which resolves the reasons not to redirect. Star Mississippi 02:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bandini s.p. 1000[edit]

Bandini s.p. 1000 (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 unreferenced old vehicle article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Transportation, and Italy. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bandini Automobili as a viable WP:ATD ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The information that could be referenced has been added to the Bandini Automibili article NealeWellington (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose redirect without merge. The only mention is (edit: was) in the list of models which have no information about them in the list. A7V2 (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A merge would be inappropriate, as all of the content is unsourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added more details in the Bandini Automobili article. That should be enough given how few of these cars were actually made. Also there is the complete lack of referencing here which has not been addressed. NealeWellington (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I never advocated for merging, I advocated against a redirect (as I explain below). I probably should have been clearer that it didn't need to explicitly be a merge but I think that's a technicality since it is unusual for an AfD discussion to be affected by edits to a different page. But with the recent edits I am happy to support a redirect to Bandini Automobili#Models. A7V2 (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • QuicoleJR you have actually uncovered quite a problem with this article and in fact all the Bandini articles are not referenced. Annoyingly the original authors didn't bother doing so and technically that means they urgently need referencing or deleting. This is going to be quite a job to remedy. I took a look at the Italian Wiki article on Bandini and it does not contain any references either.I am going ro try to reference this article so please don't be to hasty in pushing the delete button. It may take me a few days if there is information on line. I might be able to recover it. NealeWellington (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find sources, that would be great. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move any useful information that can be verified and Delete. Bandini Automobili made about 75 cars in total across all its various models. Reference [33]. While they are a collectors item judging by the prices they fetch, there are none that seem to be particularly notable on their own. My recommendation is to roll up the various individual articles into Bandini_Automobili and rewrite and reference it. I have started referencing the article and adding information about the cars.NealeWellington (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had alrerady went ahead and WP:BOLDly redirected the remaining articles (and requested undeletion + redirection of the previous AfDs which closed as soft delete). It appears that a user (who I believe is now topic banned from AfD so I'll refrain from pinging them) tried redirecting the articles several years ago, only to be blanket reverted by another user without even checking for references. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - this needed tidying up. Bandini is a rather interesting piece of automotive hsitory so I am pleased the main article can now reflect that in a more appropriate manner. NealeWellington (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus on what editors actually want to do with this article is unclear to me. The discussion is appreciated but what should happen with this particular article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue why there is any opposition to a redirect here. Should be clear-cut. Unsourced article which has a mention at Bandini Automobili. Unless A7V2 can list what of the entirely unsourced content in the article should be merged, this should be closed as redirect. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are drastically over-reading something. I objected to a redirect when the parent article had no information whatsoever about this model, and so would not have been appropriate. In no way should my comment have been interpreted as a keep !vote. However given the recent changes to Bandini Automobili that is no-longer the case, and I will adjust my !vote. A7V2 (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG NealeWellington (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've declined a WP:G12 speedy nomination at this page – the text was an unattributed translation from the unsourced it.wp page (attribution now provided), and I've not found any evidence of copyvio in the source page. NB: not a !vote, but redirects are cheap and also potentially useful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You were right to stop the speedy delete as it gave us enough time to tidy up the main article. There was only one of this model made and it is now covered in an improved article on Bandini Automobili. Also If someone is searching for the Bandini SP1000 they will find the article easily enough. I doubt many people will use s.p. as a search parameter anyway NealeWellington (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters. signed, Rosguill talk 01:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quico (El Chavo del Ocho)[edit]

Quico (El Chavo del Ocho) (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)

Very few sources, most of which seem non-notable. Most of article is overly in-universe (the personality section takes up more than half the article). A quick google search doesn't seem to find much. The character name could potentially be a redirect to the show's page, but I'm not sure if this should be its own article. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 2 June 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. Without RS verification of the award, Sampson does not in fact meet ANYBIO. Star Mississippi 02:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zita Sampson[edit]

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

Article lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources and does not meet WP:GNG. The sources are mostly gossip-blogs or PR sites. The article repeatedly cites [34] which is a non-WP:RS Jamiebuba (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 on the basis of the award cited in the article. CT55555(talk) 02:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but WP:TNT There is (somewhat) the sourcing present, and the award won means that WP:ANYBIO is met. If this is closed as keep, I would be willing to do the re-write to fix the prose issues. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I want to believe the above users made their !votes based on the content found in the article; but, the contents (award) is hoax. This is the page of the 16th Africa Movie Academy Awards (2020). There you will find out that there was no mention of her name in the list of nominees talk-more of being the winner. I also want to implore users to check the list of Nigerian reliable sources whenever an article is put up for deletion; with a closer look, you will find out that no reliable source there is cited in the article just mere blog and run-of-the-mill magazines. So, the closing admin (or whoever) a proper investigation is needed before closing. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after recent comment about the notability of the award on which mant Keeps have based their opinion on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the source used to support her getting the award indicates that she was nominated for the award but did not win it. I have no interest in actresses, so I'm not !voting, but with no reflection on Ms Sampson or this award, I'd add the caution that the awards industry in general attracts hype, exaggeration, money and influence, and it's far from unknown for people to claim awards they haven't got, or stack up impressive lists of completely meaningless awards. Awards should always be carefully scrutinised. Elemimele (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article incorrectly states that the actress won the 2020 award for the best supporting actress, but the attached reference only states that she was nominated for the award. Unfortunately, that source appears to be a non-RS pure promotion site attached to a site used for MP3 piracy and scammy internet promotions. When you look at the sources attached to the 16th Africa Movie Academy Awards article, none of them mention this actress. So there appears to be some fabrication here. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the fabrication concerns. signed, Rosguill talk 01:12, 10 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank J. Skinner[edit]

Frank J. Skinner (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 former nfl player who played in one game in 1922 Therapyisgood (talk) 04:05, 2 June 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. ✗plicit 03:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

65th Oregon Legislative Assembly[edit]

65th Oregon Legislative Assembly (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)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many similar articles to this, see This and This also. Plus some that seem much worse This is much shorter and has less information. For me, I'm mostly trying to turn already existing redlinks blue.
This template has all of these unwritten articles, so if we consider this article not good enough, that seems to defeat the purpose of the template. Masohpotato (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Oregon. Skynxnex (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Such legislature articles are almost always considered notable. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE does not apply here, as there is a clear and limited encyclopedic scope. Curbon7 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to further clarify why I think this should be kept because "it's just the way it is" isn't a great reason. There is so much potential content that can go into these legislature articles because there is so much notable and important stuff that occurs in each legislative session that can't be spun off into their own articles. Newspapers.com is a great location to find sources on debates about bottle bills or gun regulations or local tax changes. Each of these legislative articles can become a featured article given the right amount of attention. Curbon7 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't quite understand exactly how the nominator thinks this is indiscriminate but beyond the, probably overly primary sources in the article, there is coverage in reliable of this session as a session: [38], [39], [40] for three examples. Skynxnex (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Inherently notable article Alexcs114 (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are there sources that provide end of session recaps - yes. Are there sources that provide legislative session previews - yes. Are there sources that can provide additional context of legislation that is debated - yes. In general, the reasoning around WP:NSEASON and why we have articles about individual election contests can and should apply to legislative sessions. --Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can and should the article be improved - yes. However, that is not a reason for deletion. - Enos733 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable. The nominator's rationale does not make sense here. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Therapyisgood, would you consider withdrawing this AfD? It appears to be a snow keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but draftify. Article is clearly not ready to be in the mainspace, with a total lack of secondary sources (which are freely available). SounderBruce 21:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to draftification. This is not a case where doing so would be beneficial. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there is no need to send this to draft. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 19:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable topic with easy enough to find sources. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 19:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ripert[edit]

Tom Ripert (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)

Likely to fail WP:NBIO. Tom is not specifically mentioned in the NYT and New Yorker (there is however, an "Eric Ripert" who is presumably the subject's father). The other refs read like PR/promotional pieces. KH-1 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A vanity page. I removed the New Yorker citation - it's not about him at all, and it just adds a veneer of reliable sourciness that the article doesn't deserve. Can't see the NYT article but from nominator's comment that cite probably deserves the same fate, leaving the article unsourced beyond self-published and apparently self-authored cites. Oblivy (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Skynxnex (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oblivy is right that the New Yorker citation refers very obviously to a completely different person in a different industry. This is very worrying, as it implies either total incompetence from whoever inserted it, or deception, neither of which is a good basis for an article. I also smell a rat on the whole business. I did find a source in the New York Weekly but (a) this reeks of the work of a publicist, derived from the subject himself, and (b) it's blacklisted. The additional rat that I'm smelling comes from Companies house, which lists ROLZO in the UK as a micro-company with 3 employees in 2021, and fixed assets of less than £12,000. That sounds pretty small for a taxi-company, so either the UK branch is rather tiny or the whole thing is rather tiny. I can't help feel this might all be publicity from someone whose ambitions are much larger than their reality. Maybe better to wait for something more reliable before we have an article. Elemimele (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to 30/6/2022 unaudited accounts, they had net assets of GBP250K, 3 employees. [41] Otherwise I agree with all you've said. Oblivy (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I quoted only fixed assets. Either way, it's small. It may be bigger in some other country, but I have doubts. Elemimele (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that now. Perhaps they are leasing the cars? Anyway, agree it's not a substantial company. Oblivy (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Calipost is a SEO/PR fake blog, so was the "limitless magazine" bit which was posted by the same SEO guy from "disruptmagazine". A noted, the NYT bit mentions neither the subject of this article, nor the company in question. I wouldn't expect it to since it was published when he was 16 years old. This is just UDPE garbage. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For transparency, after reviewing the author's other additions and the ignored UDPE request on his page, I've blocked the account. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters. Star Mississippi 02:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La chilindrina[edit]

La chilindrina (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 with the page on Quico (El Chavo del Ocho), article has very few sources, most of which seem non-notable. Most of article is overly in-universe. A quick google search finds a few sources, but not many. The character name could potentially be a redirect to the show's page, but I'm not sure if this should be its own article (though it does seem slightly more notable than Quico). Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 2 June 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. ✗plicit 01:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boyaa Poker Tour[edit]

Boyaa Poker 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)

Cross-wiki Spam СлаваУкраїні! 05:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "进击的BPT——博雅互动博雅国际扑克大赛成长历程" [Attacking BPT——Boyaa Interactive Boyaa International Poker Tournament Growth History] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2017-06-14. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.

      The article notes: "BPT（Boyaa Poker Tour），是由博雅互动倾力打造的全球性德州扑克竞技盛宴，截至2017年，赛事已经成功举办了三届。每一届BPT都有其独一无二的特点，也是博雅互动在赛事探索之路上的成长记录，现在我们就来回顾之前博雅互动举办的前三场博雅国际扑克大赛（Boyaa Poker Tour，下文简称“BPT大赛”）的精彩画面。"

      From Google Translate: "BPT (Boyaa Poker Tour) is a global Texas Hold'em competition created by Boyaa Interactive. As of 2017, the tournament has been successfully held for three sessions. Each BPT has its unique characteristics, and it is also the growth record of Boyaa Interactive on the road of event exploration. Now let’s review the interesting features of the first three Boyaa International Poker Tournaments (Boyaa Poker Tour, hereinafter referred to as “BPT Tournament”) held by Boyaa Interactive. ”)."

    2. "首个越南卫星赛成功落幕，2017博雅互动BPT即将开启" [The first Vietnam Satellite Tournament ended successfully, and the 2017 Boyaa Interactive BPT is about to start] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2017-06-20. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.

      The article notes: "近日，博雅互动2017博雅国际扑克大赛（BPT）全球卫星赛之越南河内站首战告捷！经过近14个小时的现场比拼，最终一名越南律师从72名选手中脱颖而出，赢得今年首张博雅互动BPT澳门总决赛邀请函以及大赛提供的现金奖励。"

      From Google Translate: "Recently, Boyaa Interactive 2017 Boyaa International Poker Tournament (BPT) Global Satellite Tournament in Hanoi, Vietnam won the first round! After nearly 14 hours of on-site competition, a Vietnamese lawyer finally stood out from 72 contestants and won the first invitation to the finals of Boyaa Interactive BPT Macau this year and the cash reward provided by the competition."

    3. "2017博雅互动BPT大赛正式开幕 DAY1共352人晋级" [The 2017 Boyaa Interactive BPT Contest officially opened, and a total of 352 people advanced on DAY1] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2017-10-30. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.

      The article notes: "10月28日，2017年博雅国际扑克大赛（Boyaa Poker Tour，简称“BPT”）正式开幕，近三个月来从线上选拔出来的全球五大赛区的600名选手在中国澳门巴比伦娱乐场汇聚一堂，共同向大赛设置的600万港币奖金与425亿游戏币进击。28-29日，大赛A、B两组的选手共有358人从DAY1 晋级到DAY2。"

      From Google Translate: "On October 28th, the 2017 Boyaa Poker Tour ("BPT") officially opened. In the past three months, 600 players from the five major regions in the world, selected online, gathered at the Babylon Casino in Macau, China , and jointly attack the 6 million Hong Kong dollar prize money and 42.5 billion game coins set by the competition. On the 28th and 29th, a total of 358 players from the A and B groups of the competition advanced from DAY1 to DAY2."

    4. Holloway, Chad (2015-10-02). "Professional Magician Mai Jie Wins 2015 Boyaa Poker Tournament for $113,628". PokerNews. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.

      The article notes: "Earlier this week, the 2015 Boyaa Poker Tournament (BPT) concluded at the Venetian Macau. The international tournament was organized by Boyaa Interactive, with Poker King Club as co-organizer, and saw 298 players battle it out for a share of a USD $500,000 prize pool. ... However, in the end it was Mai Jie, a professional magician, who won the title of Global Champion at the 2015 BPT and captured a HK$880,678 ($113,628) first-place prize."

    5. Yang, Yuboluo 杨虞波罗; Shen, 沈光倩, eds. (2016-10-24). "2016博雅国际扑克大赛开幕 首日228名选手成功晋级" [2016 Boyaa International Poker Tournament opens, 228 players successfully advanced on the first day]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.

      The article notes: "10月22日下午，2016博雅国际扑克大赛（BPT）在澳门威尼斯人隆重开幕，来自全球5大赛区10余个国家的近300名选手在开赛前完成了比赛签到，并开始首日的征战，经过6个级别的角逐之后，228名选手成功晋级次日主赛。"

      From Google Translate: "On the afternoon of October 22, the 2016 Boyaa International Poker Tournament (BPT) was grandly opened at the Venetian Macao. Nearly 300 players from more than 10 countries in the world’s five major competition areas completed the game registration before the start of the game and started the first day of competition. After 6 levels of competition, 228 players successfully advanced to the next day's main event."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. "德州扑克"打天下" 博雅互动能否安然度过监管危机?" [Can Boyaa Interactive Survive the Regulatory Crisis?] (in Chinese). NetEase. 2018-04-23. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.

        The article provides one paragraph about the subject. The article notes: "除了线上游戏之外，博雅互动还在2015-2017年三年间举办了四届博雅国际扑克大赛(BPT)，吸引了来自全球数十个国家数百名选手参赛，具有一定的国际影响力。可以说，博雅互动基本上就靠德州扑克在打天下。"

        From Google Translate: "In addition to online games, Boyaa Interactive also held four Boyaa International Poker Tournaments (BPT) during the three years from 2015 to 2017, attracting hundreds of players from dozens of countries around the world to participate, which has a certain international influence."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Boyaa Poker Tour (simplified Chinese: 博雅国际扑克大赛; traditional Chinese: 博雅國際撲克大賽) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm satisfied by the above sources provided by Cunard and suspect that much more, similar, coverage is likely to exist. signed, Rosguill talk 02:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:21, 2 June 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. Participants reached consensus that sources exist to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiato Blow[edit]

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

Not noteworthy per WP:BIO RosicrucianTalk 02:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article cites Vice and the Independent, both of which are major publications. I think he has suitable notability. Di (they-them) (talk)
  • Delete To expand upon my reason for nominating this article for deletion, short-term notoriety does not necessarily lead to long-term notability. This person is barely a footnote in the current movement to boycott Target, which itself will likely fade from the news in a month or two. The claim that the subject of the article is a "pioneer of the Trumpist hip hop subgenre of 'MAGA rap'" is dubious, as political affiliation does not define a subgenre. At best, this article would benefit from being merged into a larger one about right-wing anti-LGBT advocacy. --RosicrucianTalk 13:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    struck delete vote by the nominator as the nomination statement counts as the delete vote Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the nominator is allowed to vote on deletion discussions. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They can; to be fair, nominating the article for deletion is a delete vote. Otherwise, they'd nominate it for deletion and ask to keep it? Oaktree b (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This gentleman expresses a view that is in no way contrary to the laws of the United States. Deleting this entry would be tantamount to censoring a differing opinion in a totalitarian dictatorship. On the other hand, a person who has managed to reach the number one position on the US charts deserves to have his entry in Wikipedia. In comparision, many much more obscure individuals have their profile on Wikipedia. --92.184.97.132 (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not an article subject has expressed views contrary to the laws of the US is not relevant here. There are plenty of articles about terrorists, serial killers, tax evaders, and so on.
The article is being considered for deletion in accordance with WP:N. Remember that Wikipedia is a private entity and not censored. Only content that violates relevant policy or laws of the US is removed. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with his opinions, the deletion discussion is about whether he has actual notability. We don't delete articles based on whether we agree with the people they're about or not. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't worried about censorship and the laws of the US aren't relevant to the discussion debate here. Wikipedia isn't strictly American either, we keep a world view here.Oaktree b (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The Independent is about the only coverage in RS I can find, rest are all supermarket tabloids without notability for wikipedia. Vice is an iffy source. We'd need one more strong source to !keep Oaktree b (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject has been covered by various media outlets for some time. The page definitely needs expanding but subject is notable. Partyclams (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this page because there was so much coverage of the subject. He's clearly notable. And I am in no way a fan of this individual, so I did it solely on the grounds of notability. PickleG13 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it clearly meets item #1 of WP:BAND. Vice wrote an article over 4,000 words long about the subject, clearly not trivial in nature. I think it would be pertinent to place {{US-music-bio-stub}} to see if anyone has interest in expanding it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 22:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this deletion request appears to be politically motivated and should be quickly closed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.114.58 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to think that there is any political motivation for the deletion request, it is based on notability and not politics. To insinuate that there is a political motivation without evidence is not okay. Don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this rapper received significant coverage from various other songs, which could be added to this article if they are sourced. The stub template speaks for itself; I think there are many ways to improve it. - HarukaAmaranth (talk | contribs) 05:30, 5 June 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. All substantive analysis of the available sourcing for the topic points to deletion, despite some protests to the contrary. signed, Rosguill talk 03:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizon Institute[edit]

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

Was proposed for deletion back in 2016 as No substantive content to credibly establish WP:NOTABILITY. Well, seven years later there's still no substantive content to credibly establish WP:NOTABILITY. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSee below: the nominator hasn't outlined their WP:BEFORE process undertaken prior to this AfD, which must include a search for local and offline sources. I'd be willing to change my vote if this can be explained. Jack4576 (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How are editors supposed to prove they've done a WP:BEFORE search? Frankly, it goes without saying when nominating an article for deletion, especially if you're a editor with over 60,000 edits and seven years tenure, that you've done some form of search to find any potential sources. Better, you could have done your own search and tried to find sources, which I just did, and I couldn't find anything. Also, it's ridiculous to ask an editor to find offline sources, which most people don't have access to except for very prominent subjects that probably aren't here anyway. If it isn't clear, this is a Delete vote. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for proof that an editor has done a WP:BEFORE search, I am asking for assurances that they have done so.
Per the outcome of RfC on secondary school notability:
"Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them."
I am asking the nominator (or anybody else) to provide assurances that they have complied with the above and am opposing the deletion until that assurance is made.
Alternatively, you could provide the assurances that you have conducted the search, if you like. Did your searches involve any local print media JML1148 ? Jack4576 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are editing in good faith, but opposing an AfD for the sole reason of not stating they did a WP:BEFORE search comes off as a bit petty. I did spend a reasonable time on Google trying to find local sources - however even then I couldn't find anything, including in Nepali, and many editors write off local sources anyway, unfortunately. There may be offline sources, but I don't have access to that; however that doesn't really change anything, as per the RfC outcome that you quoted above. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I will change my vote. Jack4576 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep for lack of adequate WP:BEFORE", without citing any sources yourself to back up the claim that both me and the original PRODder failed to find them, is nothing more than a form of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and should be given little weight. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of value to Rupandehi Wikipedians, (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources, and (3) retaining this entry would assist in addressing WP's systematic deficiencies in coverage...
... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG. I am assured by JML1148 above that reasonable searches have been made yet none was found
Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now due to flawed WP:BEFORE and possible naming problem, and the fact that this is actually one of the better articles about Nepali secondary schools on English Wikipedia currently (most are microstubs, lack citations, or rely only one or two weak sources, often primary – I would have nominated any of those for deletion before this one). There is a lot of media coverage about New Horizon School and New Horizon College in both English and Nepali – so much that it will take a long time to sift through. (To be fair, the article which was called "New Horizon Institute" at the time it was nominated, was probably misnamed, and if you read the article you'll see that it's more like a conglomerate of multiple institutions also including Kshitiz International College, for example.) The school is very competitive in cricket, which is probably what it's most famous for among the general public, and one could argue that alone could help it pass Wikipedia notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Of course it would be great if we could find more in-depth secondary sources about the school itself (there does appear to be some in years when it has had strong results, which I will add in due course), but at least some of the language problems have been fixed and a few sources added for now from publications like Himlayan Times and Nepal Press and Online Khabar. Improve, don't delete. @Jack4576: I actually think your first instinct was right in this case. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: on the basis of the reasons provided by Cielquiparle Jack4576 (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails GNG and ORG. Source eval:
Comments Source
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV 1. "New Horizon Institute". Edusanjal.com.
Facebook 2. ^ "New Horizon College on Facebook". Facebook.
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV 3. ^ Jump up to:a b "New Horizon English Boarding Secondary School :: Educatenepal.com". www.educatenepal.com. Retrieved 2022-08-07.
Story about a Cricket Tournament, fails SIGCOV 4. ^ Deuba, Tekendra (7 February 2015). "New Horizon edge Sunshine claim SPA Cup". Himalayan Times. Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via ProQuest.
Story about a Cricket Tournament, fails SIGCOV 5. ^ "SPA Cup Cricket title to New Horizons" . Online Khabar (in Nepali). February 2015 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 .
Story about a Cricket Tournament, fails SIGCOV 6. ^ "New Horizon triumph". Himalayan Times. 26 February 2017. Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via ProQuest.
About a Criket player, no SIGCOV about subject 7. ^ "Cricketer Kushal Malla honored with cash in Butwal" . Nepal Press (in Nepali). 19 March 2023 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 .
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV 8. ^ "New Horizon Boarding English Secondary School". Educate Nepal. Retrieved 2023-05-16.
Fails V, 404 9. ^ "HSEB affiliated Schools till 2068". Hseb.edu.np. Archived from the original on 10 October 2013. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV 10. ^ "Kshitiz International College". EducateNepal.com. Retrieved 14 August 2016.
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV 11. ^ "Kshitiz International College". Edusanjal.com.
List, nothing about subject 12. ^ "Kshitiz int'l College Official".
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV 13. ^ "Butwal Model College". Edusanjal.com.
The above BEFOREs showed nothing with SIGCOV from IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk  01:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete poor sourcing and notability. NortonAngo (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep producing 7 SLC (now SEE) board toppers in the national level exam makes it easily pass WP:GNG. Result of SLC is a national concern and is covered by all national and local newspapers. nirmal (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    .. and alumnis who are member of national cricket team having wiki articles. nirmal (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability of schools is WP:NOTINHERITED from their alumni. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So prove it and cite those sources? WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a convincing argument. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    -You have a point and have correctly tagged for references for unsupported sentences and even linked articles. But I have no access to offline content. One alumni is here (also added to the article). So I suggest to adhere to WP:GF as per WP:5P. nirmal (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's WP:SIGCOV of Bishal Gyawali, but not of the institute itself. And I'm not sure how any of my comments here are assuming bad faith. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - one more alumni is here 1. Regarding cricket, it has been a regional center for producing national level players 2, recent coverage in online media is just a tip. Also it seems the school has won School of the Year in 2076 BS 3 awarded by Prachanda (I am not sure if he was a Prime Minister at that time). One mention in scholarly article is here 4. nirmal (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're doing basically everything except providing actual WP:ORGCRIT-satisfying sources - all of those only mention the organization in passing or not at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to avoid an improper deletion (systemic bias), sources in the original language must also be examined. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And TimothyBlue appears to have already done so, and nobody has either refuted his evaluation or provided additional sources. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They looked like English language Google results to me though it's better to ask him directly. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete source assessment by Timothy demonstrates GNG is not met. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I removed Facebook as a source following Timothy's analysis, which makes sense. I also added more articles about the school's performance in the national tests, and the closure of the school's bank account by the political party objecting to its fees. I agree that the fact that notable alumni have graduated from the school is not sufficient to establish its notability, but it is one of the factors that we often look at in evaluating whether or not a secondary school is notable in other parts of the world. The fact that the school's cricket team itself is regularly covered in the mainstream news media is arguably comparable to media coverage of an American high school with a notable basketball or football team. As this currently is one of the stronger articles about secondary schools in Nepal – possibly the strongest in terms of the number of references including independent secondary sources – I continue to maintain that we should keep it for now and continue to improve it, preferably with help from speakers of Nepali and those who are more familiar with education, sports, and culture in the region. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it ultimately amounts to WP:SIGCOV: whether you are able to write the article using mostly the third-party sources and perhaps a little bit of WP:ABOUTSELF sources. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the newly-added source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If I'm not wrong, three sources were added. the first seems to be an education directory/blog that would source its information from the institution. The second is a passing mention of the achievements this subject of the source made at the school, and doesn't comply with WP:SIGCOV. I cannot read the third source, but with a machine translation I'll assume that this is also a passing mention of the achievements this subject of the source made at the school, and doesn't comply with WP:SIGCOV. Karnataka (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NORG lacking independent and significant coverage. I do not see where "7 SLC (now SEE) board toppers in the national level exam" advances notability. WP:ABOUTSELF does not advance WP:notability which is not inherited. Notable Individuals, or even teams, do not advance the notability of a school or institute. For the record; It would be far more preferential to simply ask an editor (on their talk page) if they performed a due diligence "WP:BEFORE", See Wikipedia:Casting aspersions paragraphs #4 and 5. Casting doubt, without clear evidence, is a personal attack as to impugn one's integrity. It is a good trick because an editor will likely be sanctioned for something else long before being considered disruptive. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The user that asked if WP:BEFORE has been performed (and he asked this in numerous AfDs) has now been topic banned from AfDs for disruptive behaviour. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignace Iamak[edit]

Ignace Iamak (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sources for this guy but they're in Bislama not French or English. I was able to get one source but there are a few more in the local newspaper. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 02:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: With the newspaper archive still down I have to vote delete because I can't find any sources. There might be some out there but Bislama isn't an easy language to translate online. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 22:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr vulpes: You've added one, however we need two for WP:GNG, and the source probably doesn't count to notability because of it being too short and a passing mention. Do you have any other sources that you could add to the article? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JML1148 With the newspaper archives being offline still I don't think I'll find anything. Bislama isn't a wide spread language which also adds to the challenges. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 22:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no SIGCOV has been found, so the entry fails SPORTCRIT and GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr vulpes. There may be sources, however as I understand they are offline. Because SIGCOV hasn't been found, it fails WP:GNG. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG as no SIGCOV is available. Jogurney (talk) 14:40, 7 June 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 Germany–New Zealand relations. signed, Rosguill talk 01:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of New Zealand, Berlin[edit]

Embassy of New Zealand, Berlin (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)

Embassies are not inherently notable. There is no significant third party coverage to meet WP:ORG or GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would that additional information be better placed in Germany–New Zealand relations? LibStar (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Merge into Germany-New Zealand relations makes sense NealeWellington (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, a lot of embassies are notable, this one just doesn't show it. I think merging to Germany–New Zealand relations is a fine editorial decision at the moment, but I would not want this AfD to be used to argue that we should never have a standalone article. —Kusma (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me!) 00:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but preserve - This should probably be listified somewhere, honestly. There's not enough SIGCOV on the building for a stand-alone article, meaning it shouldn't be a stand-alone, and we already have Germany–New Zealand relations. Problem is I'm not sure there's any good place to merge or redirect to? SportingFlyer T·C 18:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I'm very happy with a merge. I just don't think there's enough for a standalone article right now. SportingFlyer T·C 18:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy-delete (G11)‎. (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.M Bhaktha Valsalan[edit]

P.M Bhaktha Valsalan (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)

Has been draftified before, so unilateral draftification is no longer an option. All the sources listed are either Facebook, YouTube, or a lyrics site, so no reliable sources are in the article. The ELs seem to be mostly more YouTube for music videos or links to websites of organizations mentioned in the text.

There's a few Malayalam sources reporting his death, but that's about all I'm getting with a google search. There's a few search terms here – the Malayalam sources seem to be using "Pastor Bhakthavalsalan", and the abbreviated "Pr." instead of "P.M" appears to also be in use, but even with the alternate search terms I'm having no luck pulling up any sigcov outside of reports of his death. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Kerala. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nommed, or speedy as A7/G11. Also still comes under the BLP provisions, given the subject has died only very recently, so even if one or two GNG-standard sources could be found, all that info needs to be somehow supported with RS, which seems unlikely. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. This is very promotional, and in my opinion falls foul of CSD criteria G11. Even if there was notability, it would have to be TNT'd anyway. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pamorn Martdee[edit]

Pamorn Martdee (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)

Vanity page/COI created by subject, doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 00:00, 2 June 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_June_2

Leave a Reply