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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chae Tu-yong[edit]

Chae Tu-yong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This subject fails all notability guidelines. User:Let'srun 00:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Rocks (XM)[edit]

On the Rocks (XM) (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 defunct satellite radio channel doesn't have any significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. Perhaps redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels? Let'srun (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels, where it is mentioned; this is the logical alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable pre-Sirius merger XM channels (if not associated with another notable parent entity). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as an ATD.   ArcAngel   (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XM Music Lab[edit]

XM Music Lab (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 defunct satellite radio channel has no sources present in the article, and a WP:BEFORE check doesn't turn up any WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels? Let'srun (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels, where it is mentioned; this is the logical alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable pre-Sirius merger XM channels (if not associated with another notable parent entity). Its listing there isn't really much less than what's in this article (actually, in a sense, it has a bit more — the list entry notes that it continued as an online channel for two more years after being pulled off the satellites), which is just as well given the lack of separate notability. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as an ATD.   ArcAngel   (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (production team)[edit]

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of significance and the two references are non-RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 04:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources don't cut the mustard and claims to notability are very very weak.TheLongTone (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Green (legal scholar)[edit]

Christopher Green (legal scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Law, United States of America, and Mississippi. UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not seeing evidence that the subject meets WP:PROF. Possibly too early career, the subject appears to have received his PhD in 2006. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- found that he holds a named chair as a full professor at a well-established large institution which is an automatic keep category per WP:NPROF. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Mscuthbert. BD2412 T 02:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. His citation numbers are respectable but not huge (134 for "Originalism and the Sense-Reference Distinction" and then going down from there) but I have the impression that constitutional law is a low-citation subject so I don't find this particularly concerning. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Grimwood[edit]

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There's a Black Static interview with him [1], which also mentions reviews of books Axe and Soul Masque. The British Fantasy Society reviewed his novella Interference [2], which has been nominated for a British Fantasy Award [3], and possibly a collection called There is a Way to Live Forever. He's at least verging on notability, but sources may simply be offline; someone who knows more about horror might be able to dig them up. It seems a bit odd that an author with a 20 year career, several books, and at least one major award nomination isn't notable. There's another interview [4] but it's not independent. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. I don't think either NAUTHOR or GNG are met so far, but perhaps the BFS Award nomination will spur a bit more coverage. Let's give the article a chance, and if nothing else turns up in a few months, re-AfD it. It would be silly to delete it and make a new article again shortly after. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An interview with Duotrope[5] - does this, plus the Black Static interview, meet GNG? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The very recent review of Interference from the British Fantasy Society (per above dated 29 May 2023) suggests other reviews are out there, we're just not looking in the right places. ETA: I note that there are multiple book reviews already linked in the article in The Future Fire (the others look like blogs). Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep per multiple reviews of his works sufficient to meet my understanding of WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviews of the books can indicate notability of the books, but the bar for WP:NAUTHOR is higher than just "has written notable books". - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Future Fire looks like a reasonable magazine (eg it has an SFE entry); they reviewed Axe[6] (which therefore seems to meet GNG); Monster Book for Girls[7]; Bloody War[8]; The Places Between[9]; and The Exaggerated Man and Other Stories[10]. They're all significant coverage, no capsule reviews. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Does this satisfy WP:NAUTHOR vice just providing notability for each book? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course it does not.

  But I don't understand why you ask. Notability (people) states that "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability", and "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". The GNG is a lower bar than NAUTHOR; could you explain why you keep invoking the higher standard?

  In any case, reviews imply that there are likely other reviews out there, and possibly more about Grimwood, and if the article is not deleted they might be useful to someone improving it. As an alternative to deletion, we might even make a page for Axe and merge Grimwood's page into it... CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject specific notabilities imply going beyond GNG and, in many instances, are easier to prove because of the specificity. If NAUTHOR can't be proven, then we drop down to seeing if GNG can be proven. I'm not seeing either being proven here. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your explanation, I appreciate it. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @UtherSRG, as you have let the sources exist tag stay on the page, I assume you agree GNG is met and you are effectively withdrawing your nomination. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not assume. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' Examined references for this article. Fails to meet WP:PRIMARY.

ContributorMix (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looked at the 10 references are above. Ref 4 is non-rs. @CohenTheBohemian: Posting book profiles on the sellers site as references on an Afd is deeply uncool and probably disruptive editing. Looking at the rest. All of the then are non-rs left so your left with two interviews, one at Black Static and another short one at Duotrope. Interviews don't establish notability. There is no coverage on the editor. So fails WP:NAUTHOR as no real reviews and fails WP:SIGCOV. The references on the article are junk. Ref 3 when it says its review isn't a review. It is a book publisher profile to sell the book. That is NOT a review. They are absolute junk and mostly non-rs. scope_creep^Talk
• Keep per above. NYC Guru (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hale[edit]

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Most (all?) of the references are about things he worked on as opposed to being about him (so are passing mentions and not WP:SIGCOV). - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Engineering, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looked at this, this morning and again just now. I can't see how he is notable. There is no real coverage on him. I can't see how he can notable. When a did a WP:BEFORE on him this morning, there was nothing of note. Many of the reference of the article are dead links. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Hallström[edit]

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Sweden. UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bit-part actor. Nothing major. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 05:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redbus Internet Exchange[edit]

Redbus Internet Exchange (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 failed internet exchange. No WP:SIGCOV could be found on Google, Newspapers.com, or the Times Digital Archive. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, and England. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WeScheme[edit]

WeScheme (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 programming environment. The name makes it tricky to search, though, and another editor may be able to turn up sources I could not. ~TPW 16:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~TPW 16:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erker's Optical[edit]

Erker's Optical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Missouri. UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's this [11], descendants of the founder's company mentioned here? Not really enough to keep the article. What's used for sourcing now is a single source, not helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It appears that some sources (esp. older ones) refer to the company as variations of "A.P. Erker & Bro Opticians". I've added a number of references which provide varying degrees of information but given the age of this company there is a strong possibility that sources may only exist in print. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is enough history and referencing (found by HighKing) to support notability. - Indefensible (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank J. Fleming[edit]

Frank J. Fleming (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 of notability, no RS coverage. In a WP:BEFORE, I found a sole RS passing mention of Fleming on the launch of his first book. Oddly for a man with three mainstream published books, I could find zero reviews in RSes - only the publisher pages. There appears to be no evidence of independent RSes covering Fleming in depth as would be required for a BLP to exist. What little coverage of Fleming exists is in fringe non-RSes, and even those are sparse. I would be delighted to be shown wrong with solid RSes that pass a notability criterion. David Gerard (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. David Gerard (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just not finding any notable coverage, similarly to the nominator. A few passing mentions of his work, but absolutely nothing in-depth in reliable sources. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I could also find no secondary coverage. I was able to find a singular interview in a blog, but nothing that would contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication more input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Mousavizadeh[edit]

Nader Mousavizadeh (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)

Most of news are primarily routine, as he was with Kofi Annan. No significant independent coverage, fails Notability. Not sure, why he is notable, if he has a page as he was former United Nations official, every former United Nations official should be there on Wikipedia. Fishgrail2 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a former advisor to a UN Secretary General (rather than standard official), and author, and quoted commentator in the FT, New York Times etc it is helpful to have an independent source of authority on Mousavizadeh. He is also the CEO of a large international company that often get press attention and is referenced in other Wikipedia articles. It is helpful to have it all in one place and for the article to be expanded especially given his role on the WRI board and Trilateral commission? Bournemouth1066 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR for co-authoring Kofi Annan's memoir which is a work that won significant critical attention. Also passes WP:GNG, more broadly.—Alalch E. 14:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bengali films of 1994. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajana Path[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability per WP:NFILM. Google search comes up with about 66 results -- directory listings for the film and its soundtrack, but no reviews or significant discussion. ... discospinster _talk 20:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ... discospinster _talk 20:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Prosenjit Chatterjee filmography?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC) (Other option for the target page, see below)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Bengali films of 1994. Fails WP:GNG. Oppose suggested redirect above as he's just the top billed actor and not the director/writer/producer. Uhai (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As there is opposition expressed against a redirect to the page about the lead actor (I am not sure why), may I suggest redirect to List of Bengali films of 1994, then?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with the user above and have changed my vote above from delete to redirect. Uhai (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Crime in Ecuador. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuadorian security crisis[edit]

Ecuadorian security crisis (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:SYNTH and WP:NOTNEWS. The current version of the article is heavily based in the Spanish version, which at the same time is a compilation of prison riots and gang conflicts. Said term is barely used in the sources, not to mention experts or academics, which in turn suggests that it is also simply WP:TOOSOON to use this name. NoonIcarus (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, and Ecuador. NoonIcarus (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any relevant information can be covered in related articles, such as Crime in Ecuador. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment What terms are used to refer to this by academics, news sources and other reliable sources? Can you please provide direct links/URLs as well? If this has been going on since 2018, then perhaps the article just needs to be improved? I'm not familiar with the South American region, so I can't comment on the topic's notability. However, from the article, it seems ok. It would also be helpful if anything in Spanish here such as words to refer to the article's title is translated into English for editors who don't speak Spanish. Fork99 (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fork99: Academics and news outlets don't really use the term of "security crisis", which is part of my rationale for the nomination. References here and articles elsewhere refer to the events as prison riots and gang conflicts, which fall under the scope of Crime in Ecuador or another potential article, such as Prision riots in Ecuador. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Ecuadorian security situation and Ecuadorian security crisis are some of the most searched terms in Internet searches regarding Ecuador, and this is a perfectly valid article. I would suggest adding the years to the title (2018-2023). Abcmaxx (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to be more specific. In my case, Google turns over 888,000 results for "Ecuadorian security crisis", contrasted with 3,870,000 for "Gang violence in Ecuador", 4,430,000 for "Prison riots in Ecuador" and 53,700,000 for "Crime in Ecuador". Please also be mindful of the content at WP:GOOGLETEST, as the main issue I'm commenting on is WP:SYNTH. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the situation in Ecuador is currently one of the worst security crises in the world. The prison riots have been increasing and several events are intertwined with the crisis, not to mention the high rise in crime and violence within the country. Mainly this is a clear spillover of situations in Colombia and Peru with their conflicts and narcoterrorism problems that have spilled into Ecuador.Joaquinazo (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have to check that assertion. Just in the region, in 2022, Ecuador's homicide rate was surpassed by Jamaica, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Honduras and Colombia (sometimes twice), and that's without including gang violence in countries such as Mexico and El Salvador or war zones. Regardless, the issue remains that the article includes personal interpretation and original research: the article doesn't demonstrate that all of these riots are directly linked to Jorge Luis Zambrano's death (whose date was arbitrarily chosen as the start of the crisis), or prove the relation with the Colombian or Peruvian conflicts. More importantly, there's a lack of consensus to call the situation a "security crisis". --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The spanish article proves it, as well as several other sources within this article. Drug dealers have been bypassing several countries and laws by going into Ecuador from Colombia, plus the increase in gang violence is unprecedented unlike Honduras, which has a high history of gang violence, Venezuela (which is almost a failed state), Colombia (suffers from internal conflict), Jamaica (who suffers from a longstanding feud). Mexico and Peru (overlapping conflict) both have suffered deeply for years now and El Salvador is now one of the most peaceful countries after Bukele pacified the country. The Ecuadorian public is also in agreement that there is a security crisis caused by failed government polices within, and the crisis is seen in the media. There can't be denial for such a thing that not only has seen an escalating level of violence but has become a point of contention within elections and has seen several politicians murdered. Joaquinazo (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other topics are more suitable in that case, such as Drug trafficking in Ecuador or Gang violence in Ecuador. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So redirect you mean?Joaquinazo (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redirect, or move. The problem is that there currently is original research in the article that needs to be addressed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If the nominator wished for a rename, it shouldn't have been brought to AFD and you could have pursued a Merger without a trip here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the discussion is relisted to move I support something like Gang Violence in Ecuador or 2021-present Gang Violence in Ecuador. Either seems pretty good to me, because either way there is no denying that such a rise in crime is causing a security crisis within. Joaquinazo (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquinazo, before a page move can be considered, there has to be a consensus to Keep this article. That's what a closer is looking for when they bring this discussion to an end. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT and WP:SYNTH, while Gang violence in Ecuador would be a notable topic this article is literally just a timeline stringing together completely unrelated topics and declaring them part of a single topic in an inappropriate way. Deleting it and starting over would be easier than attempting to wrangle this content into a proper article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If anything, the primary complaints filed against the article is its title and not really that of the article's actual contents. Given the ample amount of references used including some outright using the term "security crisis", the worst I'd go for is a article title change to something such as for example, Ecuadorian security crisis (2018-2023). SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the prose to Crime in Ecuador. This is not an independently notable topic, but it is part of the subject of crime in Ecuador. Delete the timeline, which is where much of the synth issues come from. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Crime in Ecuador. This subject is not notable on its own. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge properly sourced NPOV material to Crime in Ecuador.  // Timothy :: talk  09:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Crime in Ecuador. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably could use more talk pages discussion I think, merging could make sense but Ecuadorian security crisis has far more content than Crime in Ecuador and it could make sense to split part out for a standalone article somehow. - Indefensible (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Sleep Society[edit]

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

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself without showing any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage about it in any reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRITE and a cursory Google search doesn't turn up any independent sources. The article itself is lacks encyclopedic coverage; its mostly lists of staff and statements about itself. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This is a combination of a WP:SNOW deletion and a speedy deletion as created by blocked vandal, hoaxer, and sockpuppeteer KimSumi21 while evading blocks. JBW (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 EAFF E-1 Football Championship[edit]

2024 EAFF E-1 Football Championship (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)

Same scenario as the previous nomination (that draft still exists). Fails WP:SIGCOV, was created WP:TOOSOON. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL, this is not well documented in reliable sources, and as such should not be an article for now. This is bound to come up in the future, so we can move it to mainspace after more reliable sources provide coverage of this. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the result of the previous AfD was draftify and that draft still exists. Not sure what this means in practice from a logistics/closure perspective. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing has changed from 1 month ago, when the previous AFD was closed (possibly WP:G4 applies). The draft from the previous AFD still exists, so move to draftspace isn't needed. Please also salt the article space name, so it can't be repeatedly re-created. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at G4, but since the outcome was draftify, not explicitly delete, I figured it didn't apply. I support salting. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - still WP:TOOSOON as per previous discussion. Keep the draft, delete this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no change since last AFD. GiantSnowman 18:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - new user has been creating articles and adding information about fictional and very marginal sporting events. User should also be banned as WP:NOTHERE. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Especially given this article about a competition that, according to Wikishovel, will not ever exist, in the same way that the 2025 Autumn Olympics will not exist. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This is a combination of a WP:SNOW delete, a speedy deletion as a hoax, and a speedy deletion as created by the blocked editor KimSumi21 while evading blocks on accounts. JBW (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Mitsubishi Electric Cup[edit]

2025 Mitsubishi Electric Cup (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:SIGCOV – far too soon. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article was moved to Draft space but even there, it would probably have been deleted in six months because there is no additional information to add to it in 2023. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There will be no 2025 cup. The AFF Championship has been held every two years since 1996. For sponsorship reasons, the 2020 AFF Championship was called the "AFF Suzuki Cup", and the 2022 AFF Championship was called the "AFF Mitsubishi Electric Cup". Mitsubishi Electric will also sponsor the 2024 cup: [12]. Sponsorship hasn't been agreed yet for 2026. Article creator has prior form for creating theoretical tournaments: see WP: Articles for deletion/2024 Suwon JS Cup, and their user talk page. Wikishovel (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A search for this page only brings up the 2022 AFF Championship as well. HawkAussie (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Much, perhaps most, of the editing by the editor who created this article consists of posting material without sources, and for which no confirmation can be found by searching. In some cases there are false references to sources which don't support the content to which they are attached. In at least some cases the information is certainly false. JBW (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ssoftoons[edit]

Ssoftoons (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)

Reviewed during NPP. Previously deleted. IMO misses GNG and N:Corp by a mile. Has only one reference and that is to a web site, a piece that appears to be a self-written press release/ self description North8000 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: Most of what I could find was either routine listings or paid promotions. There is this article: [13], but it might also be a paid piece, hard to tell. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katerin Alfaro[edit]

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

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

The subject has earned at least two caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Spirits (TV series)#Remake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spirits Reawaken[edit]

Spirits Reawaken (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)

Web series reboot of a TV series, with almost no coverage online. In a WP:BEFORE search, all I could find on reliable secondary sources was a few passing mentions, in articles about the actors. Not all programmes released by notable outlets are themselves inherently notable, and I can't see how this web series merits a separate article. WP:SPA article creator since June. Wikishovel (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Philippines. Wikishovel (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of iWantTFC original programming#Drama Spirits (TV series)#Remake: I found only 2 sources about the show, but it seems to not fully pass GNG: [14] [15]. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed redirect target per Mushy Yank's suggestion. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, as ThisIsSeanJ suggests, but maybe rather to Spirits (TV series)#Remake, of which this is a remake? Both are OK, I suppose.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment two spellings are used in primary sources: Spirits Reawaken and Spirits: Reawaken, so if the outcome here is to redirect, then the second redirect should also be created and subject to the same consensus. Wikishovel (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, true. But I'd say that whatever the outcome is, it applies to both pages. (Maybe that was exactly what you meant!) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I only meant for redirection. But thinking about it, I agree with you: whatever the outcome, it should apply to both. Wikishovel (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Camrass[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NARTIST - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, and Arts. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The page would need rework. Other sources on her individual work include:

1. Museum of Motherhood article [16]
2. https://disabilityarts.online/events/free-space-project-present-you-me-and-the-sky-by-louise-camrass-london/

Some awards/nominations/collective screenings/associated acts are mentioned by various sources, not all independent.

So...redirect to List of alumni of Central Saint Martins?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE brings up only a reliable source for birth year and education. Most of the other citations are passing mentions of being included in film screenings or exhibitions. The Motherhood Museum link (above) is an illustration credit for an article and the other link to Kentish Town Health Centre is a press release for an exhibition. I do not see any in-depth coverage and she fails WP:NARTIST - no notable exhibitions or collections. I moved the passing mentions off the main space and into the talk. Embedded links that can't be properly included in the article.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darlene Taylor (Hollyoaks)[edit]

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

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

Has only one source, which is from a tabloid paper. Found nothing with WP:BEFORE except for sources talking about the actress' future works. Not sure exactly where this could be merged or redirected to, as many list pages from this show should probably also be deleted. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor. The character does not have enough SIGCOV for a standalone article. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor due to lack of sources available on the character, as well as lack of real-world information. – Meena • 18:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing vote to keep following improvements made by Raintheone. – Meena • 13:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Meena: I mean, the Guardian source and the Digital Spy source are both very short and are literal character bios and plot description respectively. Metro does not even talk about the character outside of literally two sentences. All of the other new sources are WP:PRIMARY. There is still basically no coverage. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to improvements made to the article. While much more could be done, it's a good start that is enough to show the article is notable. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor. I would ideally like to keep this but a merge is more reasonable. Just wanted to add that the yearly lists should not be deleted. They are important to soap operas for the information about the character's and plot and context. Soaps do not have seasons and thus there is not a season/series page for each year like there are for other TV shows, and soaps are long running (Hollyoaks has been running since 1995, whilst Coronation Street since 1960!) and air 4–6 new episodes a week and thus have a large cast and set of characters that have very long storylines and context. Some of the earlier Hollyoaks yearly lists are not as sourced as is ideal, but we are working on that. But if you look at some of the later articles, such as List of Hollyoaks characters (2022) or List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s), you can see that every character that has a section is sourced and has real life information (reception, development, casting, quotes etc). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to say this is rather unusual for television show casts. Look at, say List of Millennium characters, it quickly covers the character's presence in each season and then goes more into detail about the main and reoccurring characters. Minor characters are simply excluded, unless they are the subject of significant coverage or controversy. I think you can merge each yearly list into a decade list (List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s) is not a bad example here). Also, most of the sources on List of Hollyoaks characters (2022) are WP:PRIMARY and many of the others come from the same source (Digital Spy) which is discouraged. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE:Strong keep due to the improvements on the page which show development and casting information and demonstrate clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - an article with real-world information and sources. No reason to delete this article. Soaper1234 - talk 20:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Boury[edit]

Robert Boury (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, doesn't appear to meet WP:COMPOSER. Mooonswimmer 17:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Arkansas. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heart de Roommate[edit]

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Single note posing as a reference. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGAMES. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Found contemporary coverage of the game in Russian here.[17] There also seems to be a non-zero amount of coverage regarding this game's remaster, such as here (Brazilian),[18], here,[19] and a rather girthy review here.[20], which could probably be conglomerated into this article (that doesn't seem to have been updated at all to reflect this remaster's release). While it's no excuse if these articles don't win you over, I'd also like to mention that this is a relatively obscure 20 year old Japanese game with pornographic content, so finding contemporary sources regarding the game's original release, while possible, will likely require more effort than a casual skim on Google and Archive.org. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra comment: It seems that a subsidiary of Akella, a Russian games publisher, officially published Heart de Roommate in Russia in the mid-2000s, complete with an English-to-Russian TL. (Russian)[21] This would be another avenue to seek out coverage of this game. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've added three review citations to the article; one is from the Russian gaming magazine Strana Igr, one is from the J-List blog (appears to only be a blog in name; the website has multiple writers and editorial oversight), and one is from HonestGamers' Jason Venter (whose contributions to HonestGamers are generally recognized as reliable, see [22]). I also added information about the remaster, along with a reference from the Brazilian digital magazine GameBlast to substantiate it. This is far from perfect, but I believe it should be enough to meet WP:GNG, and I feel much better about voting Keep. As I found these with only an hour or two of scrounging around the internet, I'm confident I could find more domestic coverage of this game as well. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Scherbaum[edit]

Marco Scherbaum (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 request the deletion of the Wikipedia article about Marco Scherbaum. Reasons: It is an obvious marketing article. The person concerned is an average businessman (insurance broker) with no regional nor national relevance. In addition, he advertises with fancy titles ("European Senator"), which derive from the membership of a private association (Europäischer Wirtschaftssenat e. V.), but may give the impression of being an official title/legit political position. By mentioning on Wikipedia, this impression becomes reinforced and, if necessary, legitimized. The German Wiki's article has already been deleted for these reasons.--BancoBank (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not 100% sure though, there's quite a few sources. Idk if they're WP:PRIMARY though, I'm guessing quite a few of them would be. Seems like a puff piece. There's not really any reasoning in the article as to why he is notable. Google shows up nothing that's a reliable source. If someone can give a summary of the German wiki deletion discussion, that would be useful. MarkiPoli (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Evanko[edit]

John C. Evanko (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)

Evanko does not meet notability criteria. Based on the article and potential sources, his "claim to fame" is having been director of a gynecology department where he oversaw a doctor who sexually abused patients (Robert Hadden). This could potentially lead to notability, but none of the sources I could find provide significant coverage of Evanko. I also cannot find significant coverage for notability for academics. Significa liberdade (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This appears to be intended as an attack page; if Wikipedia is going to cover this issue it should do it in Columbia University or a subpage. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the comment. I didn't mean to create an attack page--I was working on documenting a incident and those were the first pages I put up. Sorry! I probably should have created the Hadden page first since I imagine it's worthy of its own page. Massexodus (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Valid point. I was trying to document a incident that I felt was notable (Hadden molesting more than 245 victims makes him one of the most prolific sexual abusers in New York history) but I did it incorrectly. Massexodus (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious course would be to try to put a brief well-sourced note in the Columbia University article. ETA There seems to be abundant reliable sourcing that Columbia paid a large settlement, eg [23] in Guardian. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Dr. Evanko has published some interesting papers, as one might expect for a division head at Columbia. See this Google Scholar search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a consensus paper, which wouldn't really count, and one paper with 141 citations, but I'm not seeing anything else? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLP1E, WP:SUSPECT. As this is a BLP, I have removed the controversy section for now to avoid further damage. If it is settled that this individual is otherwise independently notable, it may be reinserted with less weight. BrigadierG (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking a bit more into it, it appears the Robert Hadden page was twice deleted via discussion. Significa liberdade (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF and should not be used as a WP:COATRACK to publicize someone else's crimes, especially given the deletion of our article on the perpetrator. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left Front (Bharat)[edit]

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

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

This is a pretty obviuos attempt to circumvent the previous AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Front (India) - only adding a number of factually incorrect statements. What was founded in 1977 where the Left Front (West Bengal) and Left Front (Tripura), no nation-wide alliance. The notion that the now-existent Left Front has merged into INDIA is factually incorrect. Soman (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change that information which are wrong. NO NEED TO DELETE IT. I had created it as being a prominent alliance in India there is no specific page for Left Front. As mentioned in Class 10 NCERT political science textbook Chapter 5 it was one of the three national alliances in India. George Simon Ohm (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the informations as you have mentioned. Please go and check them. George Simon Ohm (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the wrong information is that a national alliance called "Left Front" existed. And if we remove this factoid, what remains? Clearly you as the creator of the article tried to by-pass the existing AFD outcome for "Left Front (India)" by using "Bharat" in the article title. So I'd say the burden is upon you to argue against the previous AFD outcome. --Soman (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I thought there was something suspicious about this article. Number 57 11:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. Both as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Front (India) and the fact that this is just an umbrella term for all the Left Fronts that have existed on state-level. I saw that the user added in the previously closed discussion and even after seeing it is still arguing on why this article full of misinformation should be kept. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Of relevance to this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral history of the Left Front (India). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete recreation of deleted article + WP:SYNTH. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) iMahesh (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kehkashan Awan[edit]

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

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, primarily recognized for secondary roles in only a few movies. The sources provided for the PTV Award are unreliable. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 11:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NACTOR. The subject appeared in significant roles in 2 TV plays which were aired on the national television. The source Daily Jang shows she was a known name back in the 80s. So its reasonable to assume that offline coverage exists. Insight 3 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How does it comply with WP:NACTOR? As I mentioned in the nomination, she has primarily portrayed secondary characters, whereas WP:NACTOR requires individuals to have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I put in a lot of effort to find offline sources during WP:BEFORE research, but unfortunately, I came up empty-handed. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 02:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She used to work in dramas in 80s and now she narratives stories. I have added her interviews which she talked about her career and Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV) is a relaible source because it was the first channel in the country and I have taken it from it official website.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  Interviews are considered primary sources; we need secondary independent sources to meet the notability criteria. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 02:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She is a former model back then she used to do modeling during 1980s and 1990s. She now works as Transformation consultant and is a advocate at PSTD also she continues to do promotional appearances for Dhoop Kinare.(192.140.148.96 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. Before acting she was a well known model and appeared in many commercials in the 1980s.(2400:ADCC:105:2200:B101:D4DC:489C:7DA9 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  @BeauSuzanne, What we need from you are not quotes or lengthy extended arguments about how she worked before TV drama roles and after TV drama roles. Can you please provide links to three secondary reliable sources that are about Kehkashan Awan herself and meet the criteria laid out at WP:GNG, or link to her significant roles in multiple TV series to meet WP:NACTOR? 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 17:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't write the comment. I am currently looking for other sources about Kehkashan. The off line sources can be found in the books link section.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator has made the best arguments, in favour of deletion, but nobody else agrees with them. More input is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The source^[1] has information about her education background and she is advocate of Women's Empowerment and runs a coaching program called The Colour of my Shadow is Pink for women.(2400:ADCC:105:2200:F4D9:D810:B338:ABA8 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Asia Cup statistics[edit]

2023 Asia Cup statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

2022 Asia Cup statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2018 Asia Cup statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

All these articles are WP:NOTDATABASE violations sourced only to one statistics/database website, ESPNcricinfo. The main articles for these events have the key statistics (top 5 for most runs and most wickets) which is all that's needed for an encyclopedia. These article just include way too much WP:TRIVIA like top partnership by wicket (there will only be a handful of 10th wicket partnerships each tournament, so this isn't at all a meaningful, encyclopedic statistic) Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, Lists, and Asia. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and WP:NOTSTATS/WP:NOTMIRROR. All easily obtained by looking up ESPNCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTDATABASE. AryKun (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Relevant, notable statistics can go on the main article. If this was a World Cup, you'd might have a better argument for it, but as it stands its WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:TRIVIA MarkiPoli (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE

FatCat96 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Should be restricted to tables on the main article for the tournament, showing the top five leading run scorers and wicket takers during the competition. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all' Per nom and others. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DSP2092^talk

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aradhya Malhotra[edit]

Aradhya Malhotra (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)

Borderline WP:GNG case under WP:BLP. The case for notability seems to be founded on Malhotra's nomination for the Forbes 30 Under 30 list in 2016. One would think this would be quite a strong indicia that he is notable. However, for whatever reason, the only available sources are mostly primary sources being interviews of ([24][25][26][27]) or articles written by the subject ([28] [29]) or about the games and not the subject at all ([30]). Some sources have independence and reliability issues: the Forbes sources are naturally fawning, one is an interview for Malhotra's former college, and another is a podcast interview with a "friend". Further, neither his studio, Skyless Game Studios, nor the games made by that studio, have barely any coverage nor seem to attract their own notability. A WP:BEFORE for sources seems to yield articles with the same problems. The article also seems to have been created by Mr. Malhotra. Appreciate your thoughts. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as per nom Worldiswide (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Nagol0929 (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avula Parthasarathy[edit]

Avula Parthasarathy (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article and cannot find any sources to add. The four existing citations are all to a commercial site connected to this person, vedantaworld. I don't think he meets WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and India. Tacyarg (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but trim out all the guff. It took a few moments to find an article about him in the New Yorker, I suspect there are a bunch of other RS if one looked a bit harder. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JMWt. A few more sources: [31], [32], [33], [34]. WJ94 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn (as nom). Thank you for finding the New Yorker article. Tacyarg (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Blob Tree. ✗plicit 14:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Long[edit]

Ian Long (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 inventor of the 'Blob Tree', this educator is not inherently notable. Article sourced to owned media (Lulu), no pass of WP:GNG evident from WP:BEFORE, which purely reveals networked vendors of Blob Tree books. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to Blob Tree - it seems the subject of the page does not have a public profile and hence is not notable. I note that even editors who work on the page have had difficulty verifying basic details, so the fairest thing to do seems, IMO, to redirect until as such time as reliable sources come available to create a properly referenced page. JMWt (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Blob Tree seems a good outcome. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having taken a look, I'd worry about whether Blob Tree passes WP:GNG... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Apologies for these issues, I am responsible for part of this. I must note at least with the Blob Tree page that this went through the articles for creation process and was deemed suitable. I cannot comment on the author Ian Long as strongly however his notability is inheritable precisely from this connection. I appreciate a redirect to the Blob Tree may be suitable at this time, but I do believe there is sufficient information and reputable sources for both pages, they just have not been added so far but instead needing improvement. If others can take the time to gather information and improve this page, it may prove a more helpful result in the long term. Wikijohnword (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand your logic here. Notability specifically is not inherited, the fact that a book he wrote is considered notable does not therefore mean the author is notable. You are welcome to find the RS to show that this person is notable even if the page is deleted at this time, of course. JMWt (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Blob Tree. Entire statement of notability for the author comes from the invention and Blob Tree isn't a Cotton Gin where people have done independent work on the inventor. Nicely written article though, so it should merge nicely into the other article. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El Ojo[edit]

El Ojo (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 cites seven sources. They are a combination of blogs and novelty sites with no evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking. Some of them give credence to conspiracy theories about the nature of the island. Since it's not a populated area, it's not covered by WP:GEOLAND, and a BEFORE search turns up no reliable sources. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Argentina and Islands. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I made a source analysis here, on request :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added some sources to the article, waiting for theleekycauldron's review. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Crum375: some of these are marginally reliable – I don't really like that they're all just near copy/pasting the same content, but were I to assume that the less reliable sources are bottom-feeders, this might pass notability. I'll take a bit more time to re-review, and then we can rebuild the article with the RSes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Theleekycauldron: I have added a few more sources, all of which have a good editorial vetting mechanism and reputation, afaict. Clearly there are too many sources at the moment, so we should definitely cull them after basic notability is established. I'll wait for your review, and would be happy to discard the non-RSes. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Theleekycauldron: As an update, I have added more sources and started culling the lower quality ones. I think the remaining sources (18 currently) are definitely acceptable WP:RS-wise and WP:N-wise. When you have a chance, take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of passing SIGCOV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable natural artifact, but should be expanded. UpEpSilon (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you want to Keep this article, please state this in your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs some cleanup, but some of the sources pass WP:GNG and I don't see which WP:NOT applies. SportingFlyer T·C 08:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article is a notable geographic feature but definitely needs much work and clean up. W.G.J. (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: With the spanish-language sources this seems to pass WP:GNG ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Thornton (immigrant)[edit]

William Thornton (immigrant) (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:NOTGENEALOGY. Much of the content is padding on background history - without that, there is not much on the man himself, and virtually all of that is genealogy or run-of-the-mill property transactions. Ingratis (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  • This is so frustrating, but I can't see any alternative to delete for this beautiful piece of extended original research by multiple editors who can clearly write well, and have done their work to make sure their facts are correct. The only secondary sources to which the article refers are backing up generic statements such as the number of people living in an area; all of the information related to the man himself is from primary historical research that should be published somewhere. We, as an encyclopaedia, are supposed to pick up on those secondary publications, not run our own genealogical history journal. I suggested a few weeks ago a new namespace for non-encyclopaedic but accurate and interesting information, and this would have been a candidate. This article needs to exist in the world, but Wikipedia isn't its proper home until all this history has been published somewhere else. Elemimele (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your argument is valid taking into account the article in its present iteration. The article has been extended by additional editors moving focus further away from the subject to a broader narrative on Virginia history. The article should be edited down to the original version which focused purely on known facts of William Thornton and why this individual has historical significance. The significance is in part as a noted colonizer in 17th century Virginia but also as the founding member of family that has contributed greatly to the development of the United States over successive generations. That foundation (as is often the case with most immigrant settlers) provided the economic and cultural capital for the successive generations.

    Encyclopedias are by definition and design supposed to provide concise narratives on many subjects to give a point of reference but not necessarily deep understating of each of the topics within the context of world we live in (which is everything). The original paired down version should be on Wikipedia as Wikipedia by design is a comprehensive encyclopedia of all subject matters. "Genealogical" and "run-of-the-mill property transactions" constitute a significant amount of understanding of many individuals of note throughout history. The majority of Mayflower passengers are only known through land transactions, statistical references in William Bradford's diary and in some instances court cases.

    Rather than delete, the community should be editing the article to it's original intention. Deletion would set a precedent for deleting many thousands of article that provide a point of reference in the intended purpose of Wikipedia. Articles should be deleted when they provide false information or of erroneous subjects but the logic for completely deleting the subject matter lacks academic merit. Poundisford (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is not much is going to be left. The only secondary reference is (4), which says we don't know who he married. Yes, of course run-of-the-mill property transactions contribute a significant amount of understanding: they are the raw materials with which historians work. But the point is that we're supposed to report the outcome of the historians' work, not be the historians. We should be sourcing this article to Prof. Smith who wrote a book describing his/her studies of those property transactions, not sourcing to the transactions ourselves, and if there is no Prof. Smith, and no book, we're going to struggle. Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. KEEP As reported in the article William Thornton was a vestryman, while this is not explained in the article, and while a parochial position, this was a leadership position, whose duties in our modern times are now conducted by local, state and national officials. It was one of those postions that gave the colonists the experience to govern themselves. This alone makes him "notable."

  I was saddened to see that original research to correct incorrect secondary sources is given as a reason to eliminate the article. I could provide a bibliography of the articles and books written, however they are dated and in many cases wrong. This wrong information keeps getting passed from person to person. This could be a place where the record could be set straight in a well sourced article on William Thornton.

  William Thornton is also the ancestor of many notable descendants. Information about him may provide insight about them. Or in the alternative information about him may explain, why his descendants became "notable."

  The information about what was happening in the broader context was to inform William Thornton's life. He was a risk taker, always moving to the edge of the civilized parts of Virginia, leading to his success eventually being elevated to the vestry and providing the where with all for his sons to continue the upward progression of this family in colonial Virginia. This is not an article reciting a list of deeds. Land meant economic prosperity and the way to provide for one's family.

  I have reviewed this discussion and the deletion policy and I am still confused by why this article has been marked for deletion. Understanding policies are necessary, I asked they be waived for this profile for the reasons stated.

  Finally, I may be, too naive, to think that anyplace can stop William Thornton's loving descendants from recording their family mythology that gives them comfort about their "famous" ancestor. Just today, I deleted the coat-of-arms on his profile that he did not have. People hate gaps in information and I deleted the guesses about his wife/wives that many want for him, but have no basis in contempory sources, though supported by multiple unsourced articles and books. Recent DNA evidence has shown even more of this Thornton mythology is incorrect.

  Note: I cannot vouch for the accuracy of anything in "Historical places and estates" nor "Notable descendants of William Thornton." My interest was this man, who someone else got credit for bringing to Virgina, who moved to the edge of "civilized" Virginia, was successful in gaining land, and became a leader in his community. I also must admit I am not watching this article and if I had not been invited, I would have had no idea it was marked for deletion. I also did not know until I visited the profile today that William had been given a coat-of-arms. Rictobin (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please keep comments concise and focused on policy, notability and sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to WP:TNT. We simply cannot have pages on en.wp that are full of guesswork and WP:OR. I think there may be a fair point that this guy was an important historical figure, if so someone can rewrite the page stating only the facts. All the other stuff can be discussed elsewhere on a genealogical forum. Other parts of the page may be better addressed on wikidata (such as all the ancestors and related places). Because en.wiki is not a forum or a soapbox or a place where you can present your original research showing how primary sources got things wrong. That's it. Write a stub with the inarguable facts. Everything else here is unencyclopedic, I'm afraid. JMWt (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Rictobin, if this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, might it be appropriate for Family History Research Wiki or WikiTree? You've put a lot of work into this.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There doesn't really seem to be that much in terms of reliable secondary referencing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The existing draft is the same, mooting the need to draftify Star Mississippi 02:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Party (2023 film)[edit]

Sound Party (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sound Party (2023 film)

This article about an unreleased film was created in article space and then correctly moved to draft space by User:Karnataka as too soon. The originator then contested the draftification by creating another copy of the article in article space. There are three stages of development for films:

1. Planned films which have not begun production. These should not have free-standing articles. Sometimes a redirect may be in order, such as to the producer, or the film series.

2. Films that have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself has been notable. A passing mention that production has started (or finished) does not establish notability.

3. Films that have been released, whether for theatrical viewing, for television, for film festivals, or otherwise. These films are notable based on reception and reviews, or for other reasons.

This film is in group 2, films that have begun production. The article makes no mention of anything notable about production.

This film is too soon, and the article should be deleted from mainspace. When the film is released, the draft can be updated and resubmitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify as the film may get reliable reviews upon release. DareshMohan (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per DareshMohan. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz: I have struck my initial !vote, as the pages in draft space and article space appear to be identical. This version should be deleted per BD2412. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to close this as Draftify but there is already an article in Draft space so having two would be inappropriate. So, do you want that one deleted in favor of this version? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, given that it is a duplicate of an existing draft. The duplication itself is the larger problem here. BD2412 T 01:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to DD National#1992 to 2010: Competition. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CID Officer[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to DD National: Fails WP:NTV but redirects are WP:CHEAP. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to DD National#1992 to 2010: Competition.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KCDH-LP[edit]

KCDH-LP (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 non-notable LPTV. How did KCDH-LP have The WB when it was on "KWMB" (via WB 100+)? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Louisiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm not sold that this was not notable. To those in the area, it was considered their local access channel and is part of their local history. -- Ktkvtsh (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This probably requires a newspaper (Winnfield) that we do not have available. Coverage is nonexistent otherwise. Delete. It's not totally unreasonable that The WB was on KCDH in the pre-1998 period, by the way, but nothing is provable about this station. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Without seemingly any WP:SIGCOV, this subject fails all notability guidelines with the current sourcing. If sources can be found, I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. User:Let'srun 03:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What I could see is this station simulcasting WB100+ primetime on the local cable system as a condition of carriage, but it's doubtful that can be easily confirmed as whatever provided existed then was subsumed into Altice, and there's not much we can prove about this station's existence. Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: if Sammi Brie cannot find the requisite significant coverage to meet the GNG, it probably doesn't exist (at least in any easily-accessible sense). For what it's worth, while the station was listed by FamilyNet (its other claimed network) c. 2010 as having been authorized as an affiliate since 2000, none of the seemingly-contemporary WB affiliate lists I've seen (1995, ~1998) have included anything resembling this station. Even post-1998 carriage of The WB is not impossible: there were a small number of incumbent WB affiliates in these small markets that were not dropped right away (at least in the early days, the intent of WeB/The WB 100+ was to bring The WB to markets with an insufficient number of stations to get an actual affiliate—akin to Foxnet, which unlike WB 100+ was always more of a stopgap that never itself directly precluded a regular Fox affiliate if a station became available—without having to resorting to the WGN national feed carriage also in effect back then), and The WB 100+ did end up with a small number over-the-air affiliates where available in the early 2000s. (In and of itself, none of that is of much if any relevance to notability or the lack thereof, but I figured I'd attempt to tie up that loose end.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like the station really didn't have that much support but yeah, I don't understand the WB thing other than the 1995-2006 thing was false. It would be 1995-1998. Mer764Wiki (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot Blue International Property[edit]

Spot Blue International Property (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD'd by David Gerard in 2020, but ineligible because of previous PROD. His rationale, which I agree with, follows: Promotional article, created by SPA. No evidence nor claim of notability - article claims are puffery. WP:BEFORE showed no evidence of meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG.

(Well, the article was puffery, before it was stripped to the bone, but regardless.)

It was PROD'd in 2013 as spam by Salimfadhley and endorsed by Bearian, but that PROD was removed by Rmbeanie who was an SPA and hasn't edited since. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Turkey, and England. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I could not find much independent coverage when I searched.Chidgk1 (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Still Delete per all the above - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I made these edits. That was a baptism by fire.

What counts as Puffery or Notability?

The business should have enough media coverage to warrant a page?

The co-director is cited quite frequently in the press. (I'm conscious the daily mail isn't a citable source).

https://www.albawaba.com/business/real-estate-sector-thrives-turkey-due-lira-plummet-1177392

https://www.arabnews.com/node/1361941/business-economy

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/interviews/property/safe-as-houses-524350

https://www.cnbc.com/2013/12/12/turkeys-property-market-is-hotting-up.html

https://www.countrylife.co.uk/property/international-property-guides/turkey-the-new-property-hotspot-26688

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5877937/Invest-money-second-holiday-home-buy-let-student-digs-child.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1161568/Flocking-Turkey-The-Aegean-new-retirement-hot-spot.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1268238/Top-end-Turkish-treats-High-spec-contemporary-homes-gorgeous-Turquoise-coast.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1302815/Its-knockout-Ricky-Hatton-fighting-form-Turkish-coast.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1306659/Turkey-shore-bet-The-holiday-home-market-thriving-Turquoise-Coast.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1344945/Well-hello-sunshine-That-dream-home-reach-look-long-hard-plunge.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1293340/Talking-Turkey-From-Istanbul-golf-getaways-Antalya-prospects-sunny.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-2043781/All-abroad-Tempted-buy-dream-home-overseas-Smart--look-leap.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-2136188/Plunge-Aegean-Holiday-home-buyers-beginning-Turkish-coast-irresistible.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/property/349027/Bodrum-s-not-just-for-billionaires

https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1522466/british-expats-portugal-exclusive-destination-comporta

https://www.ft.com/content/fb64a564-29a3-11e0-bb9b-00144feab49a#axzz1CblKEdrc

https://www.ft.com/content/8090f736-83d8-11e5-8e80-1574112844fd

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jul/13/buyingpropertyabroad.property?gusrc=rss&feed=money

https://www.theguardian.com/money/gallery/2009/jan/17/property-house-prices-snooping-around?picture=341869000

https://www.theguardian.com/money/gallery/2010/may/27/snooping-around-homes-market?picture=363100259

https://www.theguardian.com/money/gallery/2010/sep/07/trading-up-trading-down-properties#/?picture=366493248&index=4

https://gulfbusiness.com/deals-to-be-done-in-turkish-property/

https://gulfnews.com/travel/destinations/look-before-you-leap-1.1247588

https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/good-news-for-bodrum-real-estate-11061361

https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/walker-avrupa-turkiye-den-cok-sey-ogrenebilir-19788982

https://www.independent.co.uk/money/mortgages/turkey-and-beyond-rewards-of-buying-in-the-risks-and-distant-lands-790195.html

https://www.invest.gov.tr/en/news/news-from-turkey/pages/tbcci-supports-turkey-government.aspx

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1268950/Why-Turkeys-Antalya-coastline-course-Algarve.html

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/turkish-property-sales-to-foreigners-rose-75-year-on-year-in-september-79453

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/new-york-miami-and-paris-may-benefit-from-a-stabilizing-u-k-210765

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/what-does-2-5m-buy-you-in-cheshire-warwickshire-cornwall-turkey-and-scotland-138581

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/lisbon-and-portuguese-resort-spots-on-the-rise-89130

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/this-niche-u-k-property-type-is-getting-its-place-in-the-sun-211033

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/7-places-you-can-live-10925373

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/greathomesanddestinations/house-hunting-on-the-turkish-aegean.html?_r=1

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/greathomesanddestinations/real-estate-in-turkey.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/realestate/waterfront-homes-emerging-areas.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/02/realestate/turkey-waterfront-homes.html

https://www.propertyweek.com/residential-and-development/turkish-delight-but-for-how-long/5070602.article?/5070602.article

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/overseas-magazine/turkeys-calming-effect/

https://www.scmp.com/property/international/article/1337300/foreigners-flock-turkey

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/news-trends/article/3043645/how-brexit-and-staycations-have-fuelled-uks-holiday

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/where-to-buy-a-holiday-home-in-europe-for-less-than-pound50000-nhk0htrxtkv

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/retirement/8841000/Top-20-cheapest-places-to-retire.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/abroad/1m-homes-around-the-world-for-the-price-of-a-one-bed-flat-in-lon/

https://www.theguardian.com/money/gallery/2009/apr/29/property-gallery-house-prices?picture=346628791

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/take-five-for-1-2-million-1.772525

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/take-five-for-595-000-1.726842

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/2.815/take-five-for-400-000-1.642766

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/what-does-2-5m-buy-you-in-cheshire-warwickshire-cornwall-turkey-and-scotland-xlp3n7pgr?--xx-meta=denied_for_visit%3D0%26visit_number%3D0%26visit_remaining%3D0%26visit_used%3D0&--xx-mvt-opted-out=false&--xx-uuid=85648138600ded5c1355ba0e01f57c9e&ni-statuscode=acsaz-307

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1631059/Property-abroad-The-delights-of-Turkey.html

https://www.milliyet.com.tr/ekonomi/spot-blueya-en-prestijli-odul-1610841

https://www.milliyet.com.tr/ekonomi/korfeze-savunma-istanbul-a-luks-konut-cikarmasi-yapti-1493443

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/turkey-2014-business-review/88116

https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/ekonomi/taksim-olaylarina-ragmen-iyi-bir-hafta-iyi-bir-ay-gecirdik/240062

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303661904576455481426045582#%2F8

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203388804576612602261149530#house

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303734204577466103689995264

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303360504577409781854486066

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/foreign-turkish-property-investments-reach-121500975.html Marksharron (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited; it doesn't matter where or how often the co-director is quoted (or indeed even if he himself is notable). What we are looking for is significant coverage of the actual company and its operations, not just trivial mentions of it in articles about other things (which is what you've got above). You may want to took a look at the notability criteria for companies, which also discusses in some greater depth what kind of sources are good for supporting a claim to notability with regards to a company. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The company and its directors were not notable in 2013, based on virtually no citations at all from before 10 years ago. That one of its directors might be notable now does not translate to notability of a company, unless we Pierce the veil. Bearian (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I cannot find anything that meets WP:ORGCRIT unless @Marksharron: is able to point out some of the wall of references listed above.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2000 AD (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judge (2000 AD)[edit]

Judge (2000 AD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A fictional concept from Judge Dredd's universe, a lenghty plot summary with no reception/analysis, many footnotes here but they are all to the comic book, with one exception (Facebook post...). I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This looks like a rehash of the premise for the series. Lacking reliable sources as is, but WP:BEFORE doesn't really distinguish between this and the series itself. Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale... As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none. As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen. I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion. Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial. To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BUT leave flags for improvement

The page itself seems notable for the comic, video game and cinema universe but it's not realistic in my opinion to only provide print sources for the comic book itself plus Facebook to cite an article of this length. Definitely needs improvement but I personally would keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingHistoryFan (talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2000 AD (comics) as WP:ATD-R —siroχo 04:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Judge Dredd. Richard75 (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different suggested target articles for Redirect/Merge. Please settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to provide some context to my above suggestion. I think 2000 AD (comics) is more appropriate as the work originating the concept. Personally, I think redirecting from an idea to a fictional character is more WP:ASTONISHing than redirecting to the work originating the idea. I am of course willing to hear alternative points of view. —siroχo 04:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• !voting delete above, I could support a redirect to 2000 AD (comics), as suggested by Siroxo. Following on their comment, I could also be convinced for another idea. Further expansion and/or retargeting could happen through the editing process after the AFD is closed. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coleman Tech Charter High School[edit]

Coleman Tech Charter High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable defunct charter high school, Fails WP:NORG. The only source in the article talks about the small school that replaced it, "SET". No article has been written for that school.

It is unclear that this SET school is notable either as that the source is a local news source which fails WP:CORPDEPTH, especially since that source only relies on school officials for information. Mottezen (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article has a 9 year old tag and hasn't been improved much since this article's creation in 2014. Even searching the web, almost nothing is notable about the now defunct school. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 08:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania mayoral election[edit]

2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a G4, but no indication issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election have changed. Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pennsylvania. Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesy pings to AfD participants, AfC accepter, refunder: @Scope creep, Im really bad at this, Number 57, Doctormatt, Explicit, Apocheir, GeorgeBailey, Qcne, and Graeme Bartlett: Star Mississippi 02:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Notability plays no role when refunding a draft. So I am not opposing or supporting deletion, but I would be happy to make this a draft again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I approved this draft as it seemed to meet the criteria for WP:NEVENT, but happy to defer to more experienced editors. Qcne (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for that insight @Graeme Bartlett. I wrongly thought it was weighed when refunded following an AfD. (And of course no issue with the refund itself) Star Mississippi 13:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to List of mayors of Lancaster, Pennsylvania and/or Danene Sorace. Since the last commenter invoked WP:NEVENT, I would point to WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:ROUTINE and WP:DIVERSE from those guidelines. Also, all my points from the first go-around still stand. Apocheir (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the above comment. It should be deleted or possibly merged if there is consensus but I don't think it is notable. If its deleted, it should be salted. scope_creep^Talk 09:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet NEVENT per policies linked in Apocheir's !vote. Like horrific crimes, not every important local election is an event... of lasting, historical significance. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]