Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< March 29 March 31 >

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Mahood[edit]

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

Previously deleted by soft delete but now restored. I believe she still fails WP:NPOL and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 30 March 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 Mortal Kombat characters. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goro (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

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

Minor MK character fails WP:SIGCOV. Found only this 2 sources [1] [2], but the latter seems to be a bit trivial and still fails third party sources. GlatorNator (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge To List of Mortal Kombat characters. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, unnecessary split from the parent list and lacks notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. I also hate to sound repetitive because no doubt he was a badass in the early days of the series, but nowadays he’s fallen through the cracks and the lack of non-listicle reception shows that, as does the Kotaku source (the Polygon one is merely BTS fluff). You can’t really fall farther from grace than a lousy OC killing you in the movie. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This is the MK character AFD nomination I probably disagree with the most so far, besides Reptile. We have three good sources I've added to Goro recently in the article, regarding his roles in the movies, with critical analyses and background on the character. Also, the document that I recently found from a search that is in a different language, called "Uma análise da indumentária em Mortal Kombat: histórico e evolução" has at least a full page on him. A source like this might also be of some use. This is not some obscure character that has only been in like two games like Mavado or Darrius, which have next to no coverage that we are talking about here. They are "minor" characters, not Goro. We are talking about a popular character that has been around since day one, so I would be shocked if even more coverage, besides the sources recently uncovered, don't exist. You can argue the split was "unnecessary," but I can just as well that merging it is completely unnecessary. In fact, it's not even a "split" at all, because checking the history, it was never merged into the list of MK characters articles at all. MoonJet (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "good sources" you added are trivial; two users above also said it. Also, the rest of your argument falls into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GlatorNator (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How are these sources I've added to the article and on here "trivial?" They are critical and important analyses on his roles in the films. Anything but trivial. My other arguments are not WP:OTHERSTUFF, because Mavado and Darrius do not have they're own articles, nor have they ever had one in the past 15+ years. I'm merely pointing out that they are much less likely to get coverage than someone like Goro. I was also merely correctly someone that the article was split off when it never was. Not that it's part of my argument for keeping the article. MoonJet (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually somewhat surprised Goro was never merged at all, but my point stands, article age is not exactly a rationale. He has never stood on his own as a notable article and throwing out trivial coverage will not change that. Demonstrate numerous pieces of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Here's some I've uncovered so far:
    The document "Uma análise da indumentária em Mortal Kombat: histórico e evolução" has a full page on him.
    Critical analyses on his role in the 2021 film
    More critical analyses, plus his background in that same film
    Some analyses on him in the 1995 film
    While this one is not really critical analyses, it may also be used
    If I find more, I'll be sure to provide them. MoonJet (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You just showed the same sources what we already saw at the article. GlatorNator (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, but I'm putting them here for reference of what sources I'm talking about. MoonJet (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The second link has no "critical analyses" at all and is just a promotional piece about filming the character, while the status of Goro's animatronic head is more trivia than usable content.
    Heck, there's more in-depth material about the movie versions of Goro than the game versions, which doesn't bode well for keeping the article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, at least from the sources I've seen so far. However, that doesn't matter. "In-depth material" is in-depth material, whether pertains to Goro from the games or the movies. The article is about Goro as a character. Not just a video game character, but a multi-media character. If anything, his role in the movies should help his notability, since it shows he has more importance outside just the games. MoonJet (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beemer69: The information may be trivial, but it is still significant coverage. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An MK fan collecting an MK movie prop and housing it in the the MK franchise headquarters doesn't constitute significant coverage of the character. That is indeed the definition of trivial, so you're basically contradicting yourself here. If the collector and/or location were more notable, then yes. Years ago I put in the Ermac article that his Annihilation costume was sold at auction, then later had to remove it because it was deemed trivial. The same applies in this instance even if you replaced Goro with a higher-profile character like Sub-Zero or Scorpion. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 22:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Too much trivial information to warrant his own article. Hansen SebastianTalk 17:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters per above.  // Timothy :: talk  11:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are more than enough to establish notability. Plenty of significant coverage provided above and in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the information are trivial, it doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV GlatorNator (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a pretty damn thorough search for sources establishing notability, and nada. Merge. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strike (estate agent)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, previously deleted by PROD. This PROD was challenged by an IP, hence article recreation. There's been no improvement since recreation, and I'm unable to find any additional coverage online. Given that "strike" is a pretty common word, I narrowed searches by including the founder's names and still turned up nothing not already cited. The coverage in The Independent is on the weak side as far as depth of analysis with respect to Strike (formerly housesimple) but does contribute towards establishing notability; I'm unable to evaluate The Telegraph citation due to a paywall. The other cited sources, however, are pure PR, leaving us short of NCORP even if we assume that the Telegraph is rock solid. signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Pretty significant estate firm. Quite a bit of coverage recently in relation to the sale of Purblebricks [3] [4] Furius (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see past the paywall of the first source (The Times is generally a good source but I would want to verify the depth of coverage regarding Strike), but the second source looks like a promo piece of minimal depth and dubious reliability in a trade magazine. signed, Rosguill talk 04:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just an advertisement, or am I missing something? Athel cb (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the text as-written is near G11 territory, but given its history of deletion by PROD and recreation at an IP's request, my thinking is that an AfD would result in a lasting consensus, whereas deleting via G11 would just end up kicking the can down the road. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a non-notable company created and edited by a number of users with a COI (1, 2, 3). The page was originally created as Housesimple in 2017 by Housesimple2017 and has been G11 CSD tagged twice (1, 2) in the past as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable characteristics despite the efforts of WP:COI PR to persuade otherwise. Hindsight only reinforces lack of WP:N since recreation.Plutonium27 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Larnaca[edit]

AfDs for this article:
American Academy of Larnaca (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'm somewhat new here, but I don't think this is notable. I found 2 independent sources. This https://www.financialmirror.com/2022/01/20/american-academy-larnaca-helps-greek-fire-victims/

and https://internationalschoolguide.com/cyprus/larnaca/american_academy_larnaca.htm.

Source 1 is fine, but source 2 is a guide to all schools. Being in source 2 doesn't make you notable, because (presumably) a majority of schools will make it into source 2. But even WITH source 2, that's just 2 sources, which I don't think makes it notable. What do you guys think? Daveman115 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A09, just an FYI, bots monitor these discussions, and they won't recognize "Support". Keep, delete, redirect or merge are terms they'll recognize. Thanks. 174.212.224.32 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've changed reply appropriately. Still not sure about which bots you're talking about, DR closures are made by admins (who aren't bots)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:ORG, no secondary sources that would count towards notoriety included. Little to nothing in news searches either. Locu (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently, the school is notable in Cyprus. It's more notable than the many United States schools with articles on Wikipedia. There's an inherent bias against non-United States schools due to language and lack of internet presence etc. The threshold for deletion should be more equitable, as I see it. There exist several sources, some non-English, that may pass notability guidelines. I've added some that bolster the article. According to a Request for Comment on the subject of schools, "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." Yammie2009 (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. How can I find these sources? Are books the best place? Newspaper archives? ~~~~ Daveman115 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A significant school. its establishment is mentioned here as an important milestone in Larnaca's cultural development. Searching for "Αμερικανική Ακαδημία Λάρνακας" on google books brings up a range of mentions in works on local history and news (... of varying quality, it is true). Furius (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yammie2009's points. Aintabli (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sorry for wasting your time guys. Per the above points, I retract my deletion nomination. However, I'd like to know how I can be able to find sources for topics that don't give a ton of results in google instantly. Do I use a book search engine or something? Are there newspaper archive sites? Daveman115 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daveman115 , you may want to look up WP:RS or How to find your sources. -The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While on a pure nose count this might fall into "no consensus", two keep arguments were "other stuff exists", which is not a policy-based rationale to retain an article. The others did present some reference material, but most arguments agree that it's not sufficient for an article at this time. This is of course a case where future events may change that and permit an article down the road. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Lawson[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any occupation based notability criteria. Hitro talk 08:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As she is going to become the next bachelorette and the other bachelorettes in the past has one she should have a Wikipedia page --Acroospulle16 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)acroospulle[reply]
See WP:CRYSTALBALL as well as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Policy-based inclusion rationales are essential at AfDs. Hitro talk 07:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero notability outside the reality show. And as we have seen recently in a spate of AfD's for Survivor show winners, just being on or even winning one of these reality shows is not grounds in and of itself to be considered notable.Onel5969 TT me 00:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't find the "every other Bachelor(ette) lead has their own page" reasoning compelling considering the decline in popularity of the series generally would explain why Lawson would not have her own. Past leads may have received significant coverage that warranted an article, but this one doesn't look like she has. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify, I assume a lot of coverage will come when the new season of The Bachelorette starts in June. And she is the main lead of the next series, so this is not a bit role. Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep This People article talks a bit about her history/life [5] and this in Cosmo [6]. Coverage in Variety [7] She's not New York Times material, but there is some coverage. Did either side asking for it to be kept or deleted even look? Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG, per Oaktree b. Would be reasonable to argue that this is WP:TOOSOON, since she will receive additional (and hopefully better) coverage when her season airs, but I think a draft is not likely to be helpful (as this is likely a popular search term, so keeping the page title in mainspace is important). Looks like her season currently exists as a redirect, so I would have no problem with a redirect to The Bachelorette (American season 19)... but that could only be a temporary solution until the season article is live. Suriname0 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and BIO, BLP1E. Sources and BEFORE showed promo, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO. // Timothy :: talk  00:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Onel5969. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Soldak[edit]

Katya Soldak (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)

Self-sourced references, nothing found that can support a BLP or GNG. appears PROMO. I find no sources other than the articles she's written. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have cut down PROMO wording and added valid references to this page. As the author of the article, I assure that this is not PROMO at all. I am a normal, unpaid Wikiedian and I am not connected in any way to the person Katya Soldak. Non of the given reverences are "self-sourced". There are references to Forbes (Soldaks employee) and to UNAFF. I have added external Links to IMDd and Muck Rack journalist listing site. According to BLP I wrote the article with a neutral point of view (NPOV), verifiability (V) and on no point I did original research (NOR)! GNG: 1. Soldak received awards for her Film The Long Breakup, 2. Her articles and her film are widely recognized even abroad, 3. Katya Soldak has an entry at MuckRack.
J. Lunau (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Long Breakup. I don't doubt the truth of this page, but it lacks sources that are independent of the subject and it's unclear that Soldak has notability beyond this one documentary. pburka (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support-the redirect is indeed an elegant solution. Newklear007 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I understand the arguments for a redirect, but I disagree. That's why I added more sources to the article. That Soldak is also remarkable as a journalist is shown by the fact that her articles were used as reference more than ten times in the English Wikipedia. If Wikipedia users search here for the name of the journalist Katya Soldka, it would certainly not be helpful if they ended up redirecting to the film article The Long Breakup. J. Lunau (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. Lunau: I think you're arguing that she's notable as a journalist. Our notability guidelines for journalists are found at WP:JOURNALIST. Which of the criteria does this article meet? pburka (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @pburka: thank you for your reply, which showed me, that the articel did not say much about her work as notable journalist. I added her actual position as editorial direction. I think with that and the fact, that her work is seen in other media, the article meets the first criteria "Journalist...is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". J. Lunau (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. Lunau: To be regarded as an important figure we need to see evidence of other people commenting about her career. Can you point to examples on reliable sources where other people write about her? pburka (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newklear007:,@Pburka: I do not know this kind of sources, Pburka is asking about. In my opinion that is not needed to make this journalist notably for Wikipedia, because the citied criteria says "...is regarded as an important figure or". Since this arcticle was suggested for deletion, I added new facts to show the importance of this person for Wikipedia: 7 new references, bibliography, details to education, details to career where now are the most important work is shown. I hope, this will help to keep the article with all its valuabel informations instead of just having a redirect.--J. Lunau (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. She is the international director of a news outlet. She is the director of a well known film (The Long Breakup) and I think the later borderline gets her a pass at WP:DIRECTOR criterion 3 " well-known work" and "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Examples to support that:
  1. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/06/30/arts/refuge-bookstore-legacy-hate-roots-conflict/ (high quality, independent, but not the primary topic, despite being a primary topic)
  2. https://www.orlandoweekly.com/movies-tv/orlandos-global-peace-film-festival-shines-a-brilliant-light-on-people-places-and-ideas-whose-time-has-come-32460429 (Independent, arguably if it's the primary topic, local coverage only)
  3. https://www.golosameriki.com/a/the-long-breakup-interview-with-katya-soldak-(ukraine)/6540915.html (primary topic, partly relies on interview, so lacking independence)
  4. https://www.ertnews.gr/eidiseis/politismos/tv/ert2-the-long-breakup-ena-sygklonistiko-ntokimanter-gia-ton-agona-tis-oykranias-na-xefygei-apo-tin-agkalia-tis-rosias/ (satisfied all criteria, although not very long)
So in summary, each of the sources above are, in some variable way, flawed or imperfect. Also the definition of "well known" is up for debate and I've disagreed with many excellent editors who I know tend to view the bar higher than I do on this topic. So overall therefore I vote weak keep to acknowledge that. CT55555(talk) 18:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
It's important to keep the page on the filmmaker and journalist Katya Soldak as one of the Ukrainian voices right now shining the light on the Russian war on Ukraine and the importance of Ukrainian perspective in covering news. Soldak frequently speaks publicly about the war in Ukraine, Ukrainian identity, media and importance of Ukrainian perspective in covering news.
Soldak has moderated panels during the 2022 and 2023 World Economic Forum in Davos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S9yoLUsyOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QO3O32AzN4https://www.ukrainehousedavos.com/press-release/ukraine-house-davos-opens-from-jan-16-19-in-davos-stellar-programme-of-events-and-speakers-www-ukrainehousedavos-com/Most recently she spoke about documenting the war at the Night of Ideas in NYC: https://nightofideas.org/new-york/people/
Lermanalexandra (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
It's important to keep the page on the filmmaker and journalist Katya Soldak as one of the Ukrainian voices right now shining the light on the Russian war on Ukraine and the importance of Ukrainian perspective in covering news. Soldak frequently speaks publicly about the war in Ukraine, Ukrainian identity, media and importance of Ukrainian perspective in covering news.
Soldak has moderated panels during the 2022 and 2023 World Economic Forum in Davos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S9yoLUsyOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QO3O32AzN4https://www.ukrainehousedavos.com/press-release/ukraine-house-davos-opens-from-jan-16-19-in-davos-stellar-programme-of-events-and-speakers-www-ukrainehousedavos-com/Most recently she spoke about documenting the war at the Night of Ideas in NYC: https://nightofideas.org/new-york/people/
Lermanalexandra (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Significant person, and the article has been redesigned so that now it is not look like an advertisement. I don't think we can redirect and save the information about this person without loss. I think that over time this article will be supplemented. -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment listed here to generate further discussion --J. Lunau (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the other sources discussed, I think these two that are entirely about her and give a fair amount of detail about her life are a good showcase to notability.
One of the things about a documentary like this is it is also primarily about her and her life. So the focus is also on her as a person. SilverserenC 14:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enough sources have been found to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I agree with other comments on here that this article clearly has enough sources to prove that she is notable enough to keep.Historyday01 (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet notability requirements based on the sources that have been found. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Paradi Towers[edit]

Grand Paradi Towers (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:NBUILDING. Other than brief mentions in WP:SENSATIONAL clickbait articles or WP:FRINGE sources like "The Paranormal Guide", there is no indication that this is notable enough for a stand alone article. Delete and redirect to List of reportedly haunted locations in India. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The problem is not the subject but the way this article is performed. This article subject complies with WP:NBUILDING but it needs to be rewritten accordingly to become neutral and less mystified. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is in poor shape currently, but the sources show that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Foote[edit]

Alisha Foote (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)

Badly sourced BLP on a subject that does not seem to demonstrate WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best source by far is Courier Mail, which has little more than a brief quote. ABC is a single trivial mention. This Australian source search yields some stats sites and an obituary for an unrelated person called 'Alisha Marie Foote'. No decent coverage in ProQuest. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:02, 30 March 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 23:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitra Aliabouzar[edit]

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

Another of these WP:BIO1E articles about folks only notable for a single event. Absent their arrest, zero in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 10:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has been making news and attracting commentary and analysis for years:
  1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-bracelet-from-evin-prison--a-reminder-of-my-fellow-inmates-light-in-a-dark-place/2017/06/21/ac5d8f70-4b94-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html (2017 significant coverage)
  2. https://www.dw.com/fa-ir/%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA%DA%A9%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%81%DB%8C-%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%DB%8C/a-5464647 (2019 news on calls for her release)
  3. https://www.iran-emrooz.net/index.php?/news2/21687/ (2010 news about her detention)
And a lot of other sources that I am not sufficiently confident of their independence to add, but I think she has received sustained coverage from a variety of sources. Also, because she is noted for campaigning, being arrested twice, being detained, she is notable for multiple events. I think this article as badly translated before nomination, and I have made improvements before making this comment. CT55555(talk) 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per nomination. The subject herself is not notable enough. --Mhhossein talk 07:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to be an activist, who was imprisoned for multiple times and immigrated to the United States, becoming a college professor. Interesting life story but not notable enough to have her own article. Aintabli (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP1E fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:
  • Fails SIGCOV, only states "Mitra Aliabouzar, who was a student activist when she met Mahvash and Fariba in Evin prison in 2012, described them as “selfless.”" :: 1.  Saberi, Roxana (2017-06-21). "Opinion | Two shining lights in an Iranian prison's darkness". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  • Interview with subject, not IS RS for notability :: 2. ^Jump up to:a b "Interview with Mitra Aliabouzar, USRHR Women's Committee – Michigan, USA". iranian-republic.org. 19 July 2020. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  • SIGCOV from IS RS about 1E :: 3. ^Jump up to:a b "Continuation of the great Mitra's indecision - DW - 1/24/2009". DW News (in Persian). 24 January 2019. Retrieved 2023-03-23 .
  • Title shows this is an opinion piece, about 1E :: 4. ^ Jump up to:a b Hassania, Arash (2016-06-10). "Meeting with the great Mitra". Radio Farda(in Persian) Retrieved 2023-03-23 .
  • questionable SIGCOV from IS RS about 1E :: 5. ^ About the fate of Mitra Aliabouzar
  • Blog type post. Fails IS RS with SIGCOV :: 6. ^Jump up to:a b c An elite student in Evin prison 5 August 2011, rahesabz.net
  • SIGCOV from IS RS about 1E :: 7. ^ Lawson, Charlotte (2022-12-22). "Iran's Battle Against the Baha'is". The Dispatch. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  • Primary one para bio :: 8. ^Jump up to:a b "جمهوری ایرانی (English: Political-Executive Committee Of The USRHR)". Union for Secular Republic and Human rights in Iran. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  • Primary work bio :: 9. ^ https://medicine.umich.edu/dept/radiology/mitra-aliabouzar-phd
  • Youtube video, primary :: 10. ^ Dr. Mitra Aali's speech at the 6th conference , retrieved 03-23-2023
BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO.  // Timothy :: talk  11:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 23:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music Circle, Rourkela[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of passing WP:NORG or even WP:GNG. Database profile pages like Bharatibiz and Justdial and Wikipedia mirror sites are all I can find. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 30 March 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 23:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Prime Minister[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Our Prime Minister (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 evident notability. Two of the three references given failed verification. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Politics, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 20:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Discussed as an important milestone in Indian political history in Bajpal 2018; reviews collected in [8] (the title makes this film a bit difficult to google) Furius (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to either source... are you able to add to this article? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can add the first (but not the second to which I have only partial access - I can see half of the first review on google books), but I'm not going to spend time adding material to the article until it has been decided whether it will be deleted or not. Furius (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A synopsis and reviews of the film appear on pp.36-37 of The World of Ezra Mir: A Monograph (2005). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as we know have evidence of reviews of the film collected in book sources as well as an academic paper, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NFILM due to the identified sources above.
DonaldD23 talk to me 12:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 23:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks in the life of Prime Minister Nehru[edit]

Three weeks in the life of Prime Minister Nehru (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 evident notability. Two of the three references given failed verification. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:23, 30 March 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. Salvio giuliano 20:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix (talk show)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2020.

PROD removed with "deprod; ran for 15 years; unlikely to be NN", but nothing added to support that statement. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Keep !votes were not contested. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty & Stones[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines for music, and many of the edits were made by Lisa Msibi, one of the group members.

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep They have coverage in a South African newspaper that seems RS [22]. The Swaziland newspaper quoted is also probably a RS. I'll keep digging. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is what's covered in the article [23]. An american TV station did a story about them when they went to Idaho [24]. A search on .ie websites was a bust. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and a brief mention here [25]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significantly coverage in a Swaziland national newspaper as detailed above as well as a South African national newspaper as well as additional coverage so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 20:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green biotechnology[edit]

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

Another contested redirect - does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 17:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Technology. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:NEOLOGISM and with the article being unsourced since 2003. For those of us university folk that actually work in this field, this is definitely a case where if you do see "green" thrown in front a a term, it's not really meaningful. When you go searching for sources, most are just corporate style adverts, though one of the top results is from a Stockholm University course description, Green biotechnology is defined as the application of plants and other photosynthetic organisms with the aim to improve agricultural crops or for industrial purposes in order to generate industrially useful products. . . In other words, just regular biotechnology where the qualifier is superfluous. It all just depends on the specific case and use that would instead be something to mention in a regular biotech article that X application has benefits for erosion, pesticide reduction, etc. Green biotech wouldn't be a term used in such articles though to describe that though, so it keeps going back to the neologism issue. KoA (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KoA. The 'green' does not seem to add anything. Not notable enough to have more than it already does in the biotechnology article. PopoDameron ⁠talk 19:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current article is short and unhelpful and could be deleted with no loss. But I disagree somewhat with the rationales of the previous two editors. Whether we dislike the term or not isn't relevant; it's very widely used, and it's easy to find enormous quantities of websites and articles discussing what the term means, what it implies for the modern technological world. I'd have no objection to anyone writing a good article about it, and it could easily out-grow the existing biotechnology article. Elemimele (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in my comment, most of what you find is just advert or low-quality websites we can't really use in terms of WP:GNG. In short, there's a lot of junk to sort through in terms of those "enormous quantities" you mention, and definitions are nebulous at best like I mentioned above. KoA (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Salvio giuliano 20:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Park[edit]

Technical Park (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:ORG per its primary criteria: reliable sources shows no significant coverage. Only source used, Roller Coaster DataBase, is not yet listed on list of perennial sources, but it fails policy about secondary sources and thus renders the subject not notable. A09 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 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. No prejudice against future merging. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Open de Guadeloupe – Doubles[edit]

2014 Open de Guadeloupe – Doubles (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 inline sources, no independent source, no WP:RS found when googling. Article is contrary to WP:NOTSTATS Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adamtt9 for adding the sources to the victory of the former tournament and the victory of the 2014 tournament. For the other games we still need independent sources.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like a legitimate notable minor league tournament to me. Sources have been added (Thanks Adamtt9) but it could certainly be better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – We have had discussions on tournaments like these in the past and it has always been determined that Challenger level tournaments are notable, whether singles or doubles. The only question has ever been whether we need separate articles for the singles and doubles or if we can lump them all into one tournament article overview, but that would be better discussed in an RfC since that might require widespread changes, not in a singular AfD discussion. Adamtt9 (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be far better to propose a merger (per WP:ATD-M) than deletion for one part of a tournament if you are not going to nominate the deletion of the main article at the same time (In this case 2014 Open de Guadeloupe). Iffy★Chat -- 11:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And while I'm not sure if it's best idea to put all of it on one page, especially for continuity with major league tournaments, at least a merger for a notable minor league tournament makes some sense. It's a single sex event so we could easily fit both the men's singles and doubles draws on the fairly small 2014 Open de Guadeloupe article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Kabiri[edit]

Shahram Kabiri (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, written like a resume. Wikipedia is not Linkedin. No coverage in any RS found. what's given is social media and PR items Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 30 March 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. Salvio giuliano 16:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seneca (cigarette)[edit]

Seneca (cigarette) (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 evidence this is a notable brand of cigarettes. Some mentions in legislation with regard to tribe sales of cigarettes and their parent firm's bankruptcy, but nothing in depth. No viable merger as parent company article was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand River Enterprises. Star Mississippi 14:28, 30 March 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 Verbotene Liebe#Cast and characters. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Schneider[edit]

Olivia Schneider (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)

Prodded in 2008 so we need to discuss it here... My PROD rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " Can redirect to List of Verbotene Liebe cast members as WP:SOFTDEL alternative. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:21, 30 March 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) 15:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Gainous[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Spiderone. A short article is still valid, if it's notable. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Russ Woodroofe as he passes WP:NPROF #6. --hroest 17:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that no attempt was made by the nominator to address the reason for removing the WP:PROD tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 30 March 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 14:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-profit organizations in Jacksonville, Florida[edit]

List of non-profit organizations in Jacksonville, Florida (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 - List of non-profit organizations in Florida doesn't exist either. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than the category Category:Non-profit_organizations_based_in_Jacksonville,_Florida since it separates them by the type. Dream Focus 18:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think saying "List of non-profit organizations in Florida doesn't exist either." adds to stating WP:NLIST. The basis of the guideline is Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This is the only list with List of non-profit organizations in... but there are many lists that use the grouping of List of organizations in... which I don't see how this would fail notability. – The Grid (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim the list to entries only specific to Jacksonville (remove all generic NPO's and any non articles). Ajf773 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Ajf. I was going to say delete since there's a lot of fluff here of national organizations that are unsurprisingly in a major city, but having only the notable local ones may be appropriate. Reywas92Talk 22:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above, passes CLN, AOAL. Shocked this wasn't an unneeded FORK.  // Timothy :: talk  12:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somkhishvili Tamaz[edit]

Somkhishvili Tamaz (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 deleted a version of this article at Tamaz Somkhishvili for basically being a laundry list of accusations with little proof, but this version has recently come into existance.

Problems... this person may be notable. But the article is a list of positions held and accusations of criminal activity with sources in a language I can't read. We need some eyes on this one to see if it is WP:BLP compliant, determine notability, and whether this page should exist at all. (So, yes, I'm choosing AFD as a venue, because I do believe this is a pretty negative BLP that can be deleted for that.) Courcelles (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Russia, and Ukraine. Courcelles (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read in Uk/RU and understand the sources. Tamaz Somkhishvili is one of the richest persons in Georgia and famous in CIS region as a former Russian businessman who has held significant positions in major Russian companies such as Lukoil, Lukoil Markets, and Rosneftexport. But the main notability is connected to the current events - War of Russia with Ukraine, possible crime schemes conducted in Ukraine and alleged involvement in the Pandora Papers investigation. In addition to the aforementioned argument, the fact that Tamaz Somkhishvili's company which operates in Tbilisi, is involved in repairing Russian combat aircraft used against Ukraine further highlights the relevance and importance of this page. This information is highly notable and raises the page' notability as well. This demonstrates that the information about the person presented on this English Wikipedia page is not only verifiable and notable, but also has a solid foundation in journalistic investigations and reports, including one of the oldest and most independent ones --Dzerkalo Tyzhnia. --JeILoenita (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As we can see, this article contains pure mistification, Tamaz Somkhishvili is not a Lukoil founder. Also, he was never it's CEO. One of the sources of this 'information' in wiki article directly desinforming readers, another does not contain this info. This shows very well that the sources used as reference for the article are either of poor quality or irrelevant. Information about the connection with Russian organized crime is completely irrelevant, it is not in the Russian press at all, while the Russian press constantly writes about criminal persons with whom Somkhishvilli is allegedly connected, for example, about Shakro-young. Also irrelevant is the statement of the author of the wiki article about some kind of criminal schemes in Ukraine. There were no criminal cases, but Somkhishvili has a number of won arbitration cases against the mayor's office of Kyiv. But this is a completely ordinary matter, the assertion that allegedly Somkhishvili is widely known in the CIS does not correspond to reality. The press writes almost nothing about him. Of the 20 sources cited in the article, 2 are Russian from 2004, where he is not the main character, 1 is a local Georgian source, the rest are Ukrainian. Wikipedia is not the place to post speculation about criminal activity that has not been proven in court, much less about people who are not public figures. Reposter of wiki-article, however writes about 'possible crime schemes' in this discussions, As I read sources, no one is about a proven crime, and all of them express the personal opinion of a journalist, constructed in such a way that the journalist cannot be accused of disseminating untrue facts Caramoble (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This User Caramoble is a UPE account which main purpose is to service their master - Tamaz Somkhishvili. Admins, please don't take into acconut this vote. It's possible someone's sock. 2600:1700:5CE0:2DD0:ECEE:4C73:89C7:4BD9 (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably the article partially violates the WP:BLP, which is easy to fix. I do not think that there are reliable sources to confirm the value judgments "corrupt", "thief in law" or "criminal authority". However, the rest of the facts are well confirmed by reliable sources, primarily Ukrainian, where several high-profile corruption scandals were associated with his name, which were covered in great detail by reliable media and are presented in this article. --Yakudza (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the person is notable for inclusion into wikipedia, as we find in reliable independent sources non-trivial in-deepth coverage of a person over an extended period. That shows that Tamaz is a notable person, especially businessman dealing with various topics related to Ukrainian cities, Russian invasion of Ukraine (proximity to Ministry of Defense of Russian and Wagner group is apparent if to read reliable sources). I doubt we can find many good sources from 1990s as such sources could be deleted or cleaned to leave the past unclear and gray. It is essential to consider independent Ukrainian media when evaluating his notability. By examining these sources, it becomes evident that Tamaz Somkhishvili is a highly notable figure, and his Wikipedia article should be kept accordingly. GeorgYio (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The correctness of statementss of the commentators who advocate leaving the article can be indirectly verified by the following fact. Phrase In addition, Tamaz Somkhishvili was accused of organizing a similar scheme in Odesa. According to an investigation by Serhiy Ivanov and Censor.net, Somkhishvili and people close to Odesa Mayor Gennadiy Trukhanov withdrew the land belonging to the city's hippodrome from state ownership, and then sold the land for $11 million to local developer Adnan Kivan, who built a residential complex on the seized land. Somkhishvili was a direct beneficiary of the Vostok-XXI company through which the transaction was carried out. in wiki-article is backed by this source. Anyone can check the text of this article using google translate. You will see its headline Russian S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile complexes must be destroyed in positions, - ZSU, you can see it's text, which contains no references to Tamaz Somkhishvili and his business, after which you can understand how justified the statements about reliable sources in the article. I'm not sure, that some of them really checked this links. Also, as we can see, they insist on the wide popularity of the man who, according to this article, was the founder of russian oil megacorporation Lukoil. Meanwhile, a well-known generally accepted fact is that the founder of Lukoil was Vagit Alekperov and no mentions about Somkhishvili in both russian and english wikipedia articles. Caramoble (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you for your cooperation. I found the sources and put them there. It was a mistake with sources and now it's fixed. JeILoenita (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about cooperation, but about the conscientiousness of commentators who called the sources cited in the article reliable, but did not read them themselves. They did not pay attention to the fact that the text of the wiki article contains a link to a completely foreign source.
    Similarly, you can ask what considerations you yourself were guided by, including links to three texts of the same type, which are almost verbatim reprints of the same 'investigation' by blogger Sergei Ivanov from Facebook. You write in the text of the article itself In addition, Tamaz Somkhishvili was accused of organizing a similar scheme in Odesa. What are the signs that this is 'the same scheme', if even from the materials you cited it is clear that Somkhiashvili did not sue on his own initiative in Odessa and did not demand any compensation from the state?
    In the materials, Somkhishvili is persistently and unreasonably called a criminal authority, but even in their text it is clear that no criminal prosecutions have ever been undertaken against him, even in 2022-2023 in Ukraine. He won all civil proceedings with the administration of Kyiv, up to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
    What are the grounds for using Wikipedia as a platform for spreading falsehoods about "criminal schemes" if the Ukrainian state, throughout the entire chain of courts from top to bottom, admitted that Somkhiashvili was right in his claims? Caramoble (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article rather should be updated to comply with WP:BLP. As for its value, for me, there is no doubt it is significant enough to be reflected on Wikipedia since both from the sources on the article and by googling it myself I could confirm this person is famous among Russian-speaking and post-Soviet countries audience. And I agree that it was widely covered by the media that he is hugely involved in the Russo-Ukrainian war by effectively assisting the Russian military in its war against Ukraine by maintaining its aircraft. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the sources cited in the article, citing Sergei Ivanov's dubious investigation, claim that Somkhiashvili allegedly has an indirect relationship with the repair of Russian aircraft through a chain of minority ownership in two Georgian companies, and not effectively assisting the Russian military in its war against Ukraine by maintaining its aircraft as you wrote. However, given that this information comes from the same person who unreasonably called Somkhishvili a crime boss, it should be taken critically and the facts checked. And they are checked directly in Wikipedia. Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, which Somkhishvili is credited with owning, is a state-owned company in Georgia. The text of Ivanov's article mixes two companies, the connection between which is not shown - the private TAM Management and the state-owned Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, to which the Ivanovs attribute a 20% stake in the Russian aviation concern Sukhoi. Even if this is true, then perhaps the accusations of helping Russia should be directed to the Georgian government, which owns this business, and not to a private individual. Thus, information about Somkhishvili's help to Russia comes from a dubious source, and should not be considered as serious confirmation of what - or facts suitable for publication in Wikipedia. Thus, we see that the "wide fame" you mentioned is achieved through an unproven accusation of minority ownership of a Georgian state-owned company, which, in turn, allegedly has a minority ownership of a Russian aircraft manufacturer. I doubt that these shaky grounds can prove anything in terms of the wide popularity of a private individual in Ukraine. Caramoble (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeniusz Olszyna[edit]

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

Contested draftification. Was draftified explaining that NFOOTY has been deprecated and they need to meet GNG. Was returned to mainspace without improvement, with the comment, "Absolutely reasonable stub", ignoring the notability criteria. Refs consist of two database entry and a primary source. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Effectively just stats, not seeing sources that would make him meet WP:GNG, and pl wiki doesn't have an article about him either. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG, per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources to establish notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that Olszyna was a marginal figure in Polish football, but Eleven Sports Poland via Interia has a fairly in-depth obituary here. I'll look to see if there's anything else online, but I think SPORTSBASIC may be met at least. Jogurney (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep marginal player? He was a top player in the 70s, for two clubs that are still 2 of the top teams in the country; we would not be having this discussion if it was a Carlisle United player from the 70s would we? Also since when are 90minut.pl and Lech Poznań not reliable sources? Abcmaxx (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said he appeared to be a marginal figure because Eleven Sports Poland indicates that he was primarily a substitute for Lech (appearing in just 42 official matches during his 5 seasons with the club): Nigdy nie był graczem pierwszego wyboru, raczej zmiennikiem, który na boisku nie popisywał się "snajperskim nosem". I can't find any indication that he played in the Ekstraklasa for another club, but I'll check if I missed something. Jogurney (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The club website and 90minut.pl are reliable sources, but the club is not an independent source (as it has a vested interest in promoting its own players) and at three short sentences, the 90minut.pl obituary is not in-depth: Eugeniusz Olszyna urodził się 10 lutego 1954 roku w Poznaniu. W barwach Lecha grał w latach 1974-1976. W ówczesnej I lidze rozegrał 39 spotkań, w których zdobył trzy bramki. Jogurney (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
firstly, I hope you appreciate how hard it is to find sources from PRL era Poland relating to the 70s. Secondly, per WP:STUB this is enough to build upon. Thirdly, Warta Poznań may have been in the league below at that point in time but is an absolutely top club in Poland, not sone provincial team. Also why are we holding Polish players to an absurdly higher level than the third or fourth tier in England? That would be a systemic WP:BIAS surely. That Lech has a vested interest in promoting a player who has just died and not played for 50 years is an absurd suggestion; they have plenty of notable players past and presenting their interest would be in recognising a current player or one they wish to aquire surely. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not absurd to believe a football club has an interest in promoting its former players. We had a recent discussion at WT:NSPORTS where I asked this exact question. I agree that finding contemporary Polish sources from the 1970s is exceedingly difficult. I also believe that Eleven Sports Poland provided some in-depth coverage in their obituary, so I'm not sure how to !vote yet. That said, it would be easier if Polish media had profiled Olszyna after retirement (rather than the spate of obituaries now available following his death). Jogurney (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely sure they did profile after his retirement, but that still would have been over 40 years ago, so still in the PRL-era and way before the invention of the internet. Unless you happen to have a copy of the local paper from 4 decades ago lying around I'm not sure what sources you exactly expect; and yes if I find better ones I will add them. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Abcmaxx. @GiantSnowman:, I found [27], [28], and [29], all of which go into his background. Defineltyh has offline sources as well, having been a clearly signficiant figure in Polish league football in pre-internet era. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All look to be fairly brief pieces about his death. GiantSnowman 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article do not show N. BEFORE didn't show anything beyond stats and ROUTINE news which meets IS RS with SIGCOV showing N and pl.wp has no sources for them. Sources above are not SIGCOV. The claim they are a "clearly signficiant figure" is refuted by the lack of sources. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  18:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue: Just letting you know that this is not a BLP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have been clearer. I was applying BLP section WP:BDP, since their death occurred ~1 month ago.  // Timothy :: talk  03:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Festival World Championship 1997[edit]

Beach Festival World Championship 1997 (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 refs on the page, nothing that I can find looks like a RS that meets the GNG and WP:NOTDATABASE JMWt (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislaus III of Moravia[edit]

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

Contested redirect of a completely unsourced article. Onel5969 TT me 10:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Austria, and Czech Republic. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep articles in other language wikis have numerous sources. Should be tagged with “sources exist”. Mccapra (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added some citations. Srnec (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant enough. The sources are available. FromCzech (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Hence, keep. Str1977 (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment other-language wikis have bibliographies not references exactly, but there's enough there to convince me that the man existed. This comment can be counted as a keep vote if two more references can be found, in any language, for a total of four separate references Elinruby (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The content is wholly credible, even though poorly referenced. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of America West Express destinations[edit]

List of America West Express destinations (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 refs on the page for many years. It appears to be a defunct airline, no way that I can find to verify the information which suggests it is indiscrimate, quite possibly inaccurate, information. If we can't verify it, we can't have it. And it isn't encyclopedic content anyway. Why do we need this? WP:INDISCRIMINATE JMWt (talk) 09:53, 30 March 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. Salvio giuliano 09:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gitanjali Rao (scientist)[edit]

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

There has been a previous discussion on Talk:Gitanjali_Rao_(scientist) about redirecting/deleting, but I'm going to formally open a discussion. Rao is accomplished for her age, but this article does not meet WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR guidelines. There is a career subsection, but this individual does not have an established career as a notable scientist or engineer. There are bits and pieces of projects done here and there, but none of the projects seem to be been sustained or notably impactful. There is some talk of work as an activist, but "so much of the content of this article is unencyclopedic" as noted by User:Zuko1050. There was a suggestion that this is redirected to one of the awards, but I'm not sure what would be most appropriate.

There has also been mention of being named Forbes Forbes 30 Under 30, but I do not think it's enough to convey notability. For Rao, they're among the 20 lists of 30 under 30 (Science 2019) published every year. There are 600 people named every year in total across all lists. There has been a discussion on this in the past with the deletion of the category as well. In this case, Rao's listing on Forbes is because of their Discovery Education 3M Young Scientist Challenge award which is awarded to students in grades 5 through 8. The majority of their media mentions including Time's Kid of Year come from their work on Tethys and awards, but a Google search of Tethys yields little to no results aside from media mentions of her project and award, even after extensive searching. The media mentions also do not seem to be independent of the subject as many are interviews. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 08:22, 30 March 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. This article was moved around to a lot of different titles but ultimately deleted as a CSD G5 before this discussion could be closed. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

House of Dinaraja[edit]

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

Per WP:VERIFY and concerns raised during the previous AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Dinajara.

Question: What is the name of the dynasty which started by King Vimaladharmasuriya I of Kandy?

Ánswer: History books don't give us a name. So, we don't know. It does not matter whether this dynasty has a name or not. That doesn't give someone the licence to WP:OR. Literally, there are no WP:RSs that mention the name House of Dinaraja except for the dubious blog, mahawansaya.org. Chanaka L (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden Sun Lord: Why did you removed all citations except one? Chanaka L (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely rewrite the article. Golden Sun Lord (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removing citations, writing what is on your mind rather than what citations say is not rewriting. That is WP:Original Research. Chanaka L (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I obtained this information from a lecture delivered by Professor Raj Somadeva. It is noteworthy that much of Sri Lankan history remains undocumented in English or well-known journals. Kindly enlighten me if I have inadvertently included any inaccurate information. I will endeavor to update and provide additional verification. Golden Sun Lord (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the removal of the citations you added. I made significant changes to the article's body, which necessitated their removal. Please note that all the information I added is trustworthy, although at present, I cannot locate any English journals to use as references. I will make an effort to update and provide more verification. Rest assured that all the information presented is accurate. We learned about these historical facts in our school days from reliable textbooks. I regret that I cannot include these books as resources. Golden Sun Lord (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good gracious! References come first and then comes the text. Certainly not the other way around. If references do not exist, you cannot tell whether a subject is notable or not. Read WP:Notability. Chanaka L (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing me with valuable insights. I appreciate the enlightenment you have given me, and I am committed to incorporating reliable resources. Golden Sun Lord (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Windows (jazz band)[edit]

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

I found out about this band because a song of theirs appeared in a Spotify playlist of songs that played on the Weather Channel during the 80s and 90s. Their article is poorly written and only cites three sources: a self-published article on the website of Skipper Wise, one of the band's founders; a brief album review on a blog whose reliability I am unable to ascertain; and a trivial mention in a Los Angeles newspaper article. I verified the claims that certain albums charted on the New Adult Contemporary chart of Radio & Records, a radio industry trade publication, by locating archived versions of the relevant issues, but that made me wonder whether this makes the band notable under WP:BAND. R&R is not listed in either WP:BADCHARTS or WP:GOODCHARTS, so whether Windows meets criterion 2 is debatable. As for the other criteria, the strongest justification for notability is criterion 11, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network," since the NAC chart seems based on radio airplay. I don't know if any of the reporting stations for R&R qualify as "major radio" networks, but this argument could have merit if that were demonstrated.

Even assuming Windows meets criterion 11, however, I could not find sources that satisfy criterion 1: reliable, independent, and not self-published. The article claims the band peaked in popularity with their 1989 album The French Laundry, yet searching the Google Books corpus, from 1988–1992, for Windows and "french laundry" in quotes, turns up only apparently trivial mentions in a handful of sources. Similarly, searching Skipper Wise from 1980–1996 uncovers close to nothing about Windows; there are more results, including non-trivial articles in Billboard, about Wise's other band Colour Club. It's possible the band received significant attention in reliable sources that simply aren't available online, but I don't have the resources to find them myself. As the article stands, it fails to clearly demonstrate notability.

And it seems that a couple other Wikipedia editors concur with this assessment because a now-abandoned draft version of this article was submitted to AfC in 2020 by User:BraidWillson120 and got rejected at least three times, once by User:Kirbanzo and twice by User:Sulfurboy (see User talk:BraidWillson120 for rejection reasons). The first version of BraidWillson120's draft is identical to the most recent revision of the Windows (jazz band) article at that time. Furthermore, it is near-identical to the Windows (jazz band) article as it is today. Considering this and all my other concerns, I don't believe this band merits a Wikipedia article. At best, it warrants mention in Skipper Wise's article, assuming he meets notability guidelines himself. AnAbandonedMall (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Bands and musicians. AnAbandonedMall (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I really was hoping "jazz band made famous from the Weather Channel" would have some coverage, that's the quirky thing people like to write about. I can't find anything about that relationship. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it would appear the band meets NMUSIC#5, through its signing to Enigma records, with whom it can be verified they had two releases. Also appears to meet NMUSIC #6 (four vs. the required two). Unfortunately all the interesting/informative material is either sourced to not-independent, or not sourced at all. A listing of released albums isn't very encyclopedic. But... given that the heyday of the band is just before the internet era, which in my experience is about the hardest to research online, should more effort be put into this before the topic is deleted? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does appear that criterion 5 is met w/ albums on Capitol EMI and A&M. I have no idea what we can write on this band with the online sources available, which is frustrating because you know <vaguewave> the info MUST be out there </vaguewave>. I admit however, that I can't locate better sourcing. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm on the fence about this one, but I found the following three sources at Newspapers.com: [33], [34], [35]. These were the most substantial coverage I could find; there were also a few very short reviews in "latest releases" sections etc. I haven't decided yet how far this tilts the scale in favour of notability. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher. If there is some notability here blow this away and let someone independent start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The page needs some work but the band has coverage. I also found these charts on Radio & Records and the Gavin Report: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40].— Preceding unsigned comment added by TanookiKoopa (talk • contribs) 12:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's next to nothing out there on this group. Sources are a joke (first one self-published, second is trivial coverage, and the LA Times is merely a passing mention), while none of their works are notable enough to have articles. Searches under "Windows jazz band" turned up mainly Chick Corea. The Skipper Wise article is also a dumpster fire riddled with COI, promotion and regurgitated Windows content. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 02:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources are trivial/passing mentions. GlatorNator (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leher[edit]

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

The last AFD discussion was not proper. It fails WP:ORG Just having coverage doesn't mean it is passing notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The previous AFD can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leher App. Six people gave sensible reasons for keeping the article, pointing out various instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. These reasons are still applicable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - See Toddy1's nice argument. This guy already won a "Keep" vote, why do double jeopardy?KatoKungLee (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources shared in the last afd was not meeting WP:ORG, the actual guidelines for companies & Organisation.
Gadgets360 news is about how to sign up, and clearly a PR Driven material. ET News, quint [41] are generic about the Indian app Industry. TOI source is not independent, the article is full of quotes of the companies' spokesperson. All other sources like RepublicWorld, Everythingexperiemential & podcast sources are far from reliability. Please read WP:ORG and share reliable, independent sources which are significant. Lordofhunter (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
News stories about any company are going to quote company spokesmen.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And those "Stories" are clearly not independent, right? and consider as PR Material or annocement Lordofhunter (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The person from the company telling you a thing is important, doesn't make it important. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:ORG, The most notable thing in linked articles is this startup was accepted to the Google For Startups accelerator which whilst impressive isn't notable MetricMaster (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

* Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. SuperSharanya (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. Sourcing found in the previous AfD was more than adequate. Quoting someone does not automatically void independence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brief mentions of this site, nothing extensive nor in-depth about it. The last AfD appears to be about the company, this is about their piece of software. Oaktree b (talk) 17:28, 30 March 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 03:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blush Response[edit]

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

Unsourced promotional page for a Bandcamp artist. Skyerise (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: article was created by Synthesizeme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), whose sole edit outside the article was to identify himself as the subject on his user page.
  • Comment Some coverage in a German magazine [42] and in DJ Mag and the like, unsure if they're RS. He seems to get some, but not much, coverage in the various electro/dj/his type of music press. I'm not sure what his musical style is to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Germany, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The DJ Mag piece is this one and includes an interview with Blush, which would then fall foul of the exclusion criteria in point 1 of WP:NMUSIC. There is also the Volt Magazin piece but I am unsure about its reliability (and at this point it is the only source that might contribute to SIGCOV). I can't find any evidence of him charting or meeting any of the other WP:NMUSIC criteria, and have not uncovered any other sources myself. If others find additional sources I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote. WJ94 (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like it's not meeting criteria, as only one source might be acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 30 March 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 03:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle near Novi Grad[edit]

Battle near Novi Grad (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 may be about a real 16th century battle, but sources are barely available. Only one source is cited, a Slovene-language page of unclear reliability which seems to have only about one sentence about this battle. Two other sources were previously cited, but one was a Wikipedia mirror and the other was a page from Wikipedia itself. The only other source I have been able to locate is one reference in a book about the history of books in Central Europe, which I would not expect to use as a source in an article about a battle. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article does not establish notability and has little substantive content. It could perhaps be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbard_VIII_von_Auersperg in which this battle is already mentioned. Hmee2 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in absence of sources establishing notability. There might be something in this article, but I'm neither sufficiently well versed in this area of history to determine whether this is discussing the same battle nor knowledgeable about the publication venue to say whether it's truly a reliable source. And even if it was, one good source is not enough for notability. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find any significant coverage.Onel5969 TT me 18:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo López Obeso[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bernardo López Obeso (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 footballer that was previously kept at AfD seven years ago because it was awkwardly bundled and met the now-deprecated NFOOTBALL - heck, even I voted to keep. Following WP:NSPORTS2022 it is clear that sports biographies must satisfy WP:GNG and this one comprehensively fails that requirement. The only online coverage is trivial/routine stuff like statistical database entries and match reports. Jogurney (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage found (t · c) buidhe 04:55, 30 March 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 03:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Daddario[edit]

Richard Daddario (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 do not believe that Richard Daddario meets the general notability guidelines for Wikipedia. It identifies him as a politician, but no office is mentioned to be held. It mentions his upper-level manager role in the NYPD, but that was really only notable for how he left and would Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. The rest of the article discusses his family. While relevant to a subject, it does not support notability is not inherited. Mpen320 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 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 02:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Walker (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:15, 30 March 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 02:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manu'a Project[edit]

Manu'a 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)

None of the sources even mention a "Manu'a Project", and I can't find anything about a "Fanua Foundation" either. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The wiki page is the first site that comes up in a search for this org. There does appear to be a Facebook page, but no real information is on there.
The Fanua Foundation looks to only have a YouTube channel with 1 video (posted 7 years ago). They mention the project in the video saying "A global project to make the Manu'a Islands the First 100% Fossil Free Islands in the World by 2017! Build the blueprint for sustainability. Come join the mission and lets make history!" A worthy cause to be sure, but not enough for a wiki. Lindsey40186 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 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 01:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Hackwelder[edit]

Todd Hackwelder (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 notable coverage. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:39, 30 March 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 01:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harjex the dj[edit]

Harjex the dj (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 musician. Gsearch goes straight into social media links, then peters off. appears largely promo. Oaktree b (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Self-promotion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article is nice and simple, so I don’t see a reason to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4100:BAD0:6C9F:5161:B495:2409 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC) — 2601:640:4100:BAD0:6C9F:5161:B495:2409 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason of "I like it" is an invalid argument to retain an article. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant awards, no reviews in reputable sources, no significant coverage in WP:RS, has not had a single chart anywhere Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He's totally in self-promotional mode now and has gotten himself onto all the usual streaming sites and directories, but Wikipedia should not be part of that effort. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable disc jockey. A Google search of the subject doesn't show a single coverage of him in reliable sources.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 01:54, 31 March 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 01:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sesselmann[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 30 March 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_March_30

Leave a Reply