THC Science

< December 18	December 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 17:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donna McNeil

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

Lack of WP:SIGCOV: depth of coverage is not sufficient and some of the used sources are not independent of the subject; subject does not meet WP:ANYBIO criteria. PROD objector described the subject as a creative professional, however the article doesn't claim that she is a creative professional, and I am unable to determine based on reliable coverage that the subject is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by "peers", nor am I able to determine fulfillment of other relevant SNG criteria, based on my WP:BEFORE. —Alalch E. 23:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is a Creative Professional and meets "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." As cited this subject has been director of the Maine Arts Commission and a juror for the National Endowment of the Arts. These positions are extremely significant within the arts field. Lack of knowledge of the arts and/or misogyny is not sufficient reason for disqualification, nor is it reason for harassment.

Depth of coverage is significant and sources include several reliable newspapers, as well as two book publications. All sources are independent of the subject excepting staff page for organization of which she is part. Kapyidu (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to emphasize that deletion of articles about women on the basis of finding women's contributions not "significant enough" is a well-documented bias issue on Wikipedia:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14791420.2017.1386321?journalCode=rccc20

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/deannazandt/2013/04/26/yes-wikipedia-is-sexist-thats-why-it-needs-you/?sh=ca6bf864bfe2 Kapyidu (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publications by the subject of a biography do not count toward establishing notability (by themselves). I'm sorry about the perception of misogyny and harassment. Such an imputation makes me sad, but I am unable to change my course based on it, because I hold myself to the relevant norms of Wikipedia, to my best ability. Even if this discussion does not result in deletion, I hope that you will not hold this nomination against me. Perhaps over time, as you better understand the conventions of inclusion/deletion (which are not very simple), you will see this as a completely neutral and impassioned work on the encyclopedia that is in no way negatively directed toward the individual. Sincerely —Alalch E. 00:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify: I'd like to note this article was 21 minutes old when it was prodded and 54 minutes old when it was nominated for deletion. While the article is not fully formed now it seems possible given a few hours or days sufficient RS can be assembled to pass GNG. These three local sources help to directly detail. My BEFORE took me a single mouse click. I'm seeing a number of these local things in a news gsearch. BusterD (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, Women, and Maine. BusterD (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aware of the above cited sources when I made the nomination but did not consider them significant coverage. I researched the topic between noticing the article (before PRODDING) and nominating here, which I did after gaining a belief that it is unlikely that the article would very significantly change in the foreseeable future if just "left alone". This process can lead to more unexpected improvements. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, draftification is a plausible result of this discussion, that I am not opposed to. —Alalch E. 00:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) Meets WP:GNG with coverage in the Courier Gazette in Maine. The Penobscot Bay Pilot - she also co-authored books Moser: legacy in wood, and There Has to Be Magic The Art of Evelyn Kok. She is considered an expert in her field and she was the former director of the Maine Arts Commission. I think she passes WP:BASIC at a minimum. Bruxton (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient sourcing exists and can be added. While an hour is within policy, a discussion with the creator might have been more fruitful than deletion nominations. Star Mississippi 01:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CREATIVE is a shortcut that takes us to "creative professionals" guidance that helps us determine the notability for "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals". She was clearly identified as an author at the time of nomination, so I find the nomination logic to be unconvincing. I've added some citations and content and I consider that the article passes WP:BASIC. CT55555(talk) 02:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I concede now that she is a creative professional; the logic is that the creative professional aspect is relatively minor for someone described as an arts advocate and curator, not an author (now she is), who also authored something, but this is not a good argument. However, I mentioned this just as a preface to the consideration of whether The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors which is a bit of flexible criterion (the other three criteria are more rigid and they clearly aren't met). There is no evidence that the person is an important figure etc., that's the actual point. —Alalch E. 02:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the quick and also careful reply and clarification. I am not sure if the WP:AUTHOR criteria is passed, but I didn't bother assessing it there, when WP:BASIC seems clearly met. So that's my main point. CT55555(talk) 02:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per details above. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terseer Kiddwaya

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

Article about a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Only known for being a housemate in the Big Brother Season 5. A show they fail to win. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Nigeria. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - moved out of draft by its inexperienced creator. Deb (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ONEEVENT. Little to no coverage outside of appearing on reality TV. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject also appeared in UK Channel 4 series Highlife [1] aired in September 2021. Four episodes made to date. Rupples (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing any evidence of notability here. What reporting there is seems to only be due to the fact he was a contestant, and this isn't unusual, though I am not seeing anything longer lasting or assertions of notability beyond this participation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 26 December 2022 (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!} 23:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tolani Baj

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

Article about a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Only known for being a housemate in the Big Brother Season 5. A show they fail to win. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Nigeria. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reality show contestant that hasn't demonstrated notability outside of appearing on Big Brother. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2022 (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!} 23:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Mobor Akpofure

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

Article about a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Only known for being a housemate in the Big Brother Season 5. A show they fail to win. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Nigeria. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable reality show contestant. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have four pages up, i cant defend all of them at once. Amaekuma (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Umoh

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

Article about a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Only known for being a housemate in the Big Brother Season 6. A show they fail to win. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Nigeria. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly promotional. Deb (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks notability. Being a houseguest on Big Brother is not enough. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER.Just being a housemate in Big Brother is not enough.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2022 (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!} 21:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan Gorman

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:DIRECTOR. Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be deleted. It has been reduced quite a bit recently by contributors, but just needs more information and references to improve. Capulet1 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watson Jean-Louis

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Markenly Amilcar

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best sources I can find are his own FA, which isn't independent, and Tribune242. Both of these are textbook examples of trivial coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 26 December 2022 (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!} 21:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Teles

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about footballer who played twice in the Portuguese top league, but which comprehensively fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online coverage I can find is stuff like this match report from when he was a junior player. Prior AfD was withdrawn, but that was before WP:NSPORTS2022, so it should be deleted now.Jogurney (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching for David Telles, so I missed a few articles available such as this but it is an interview with some prose that falls far short of WP:SIGCOV. There are other similar articles as well. Jogurney (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. I think they're enough. Giant Snowman 19:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. I found 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 among many many more Portuguese sources. He is young player with ongoing professional career who has played in fully pro Portuguese second tier. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2022 (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!} 21:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRT International

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

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Was a major public channel. Gazozlu (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meeting GNG. Notable channel. Tictictoc (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only source in the article is TRT itself so obviously they would call their own channel notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how familiar you are with it, but this channel is a public tv channel that has been available since the 90s or something. There isn't a valid reason to think that this channel is not notable. Gazozlu (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it was closed in 2009 Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply asserting that the channel is notable or vice versa has no actual bearing in such discussions. The fact that the channel is defunct is also no reason to delete by itself per WP:NPERM. The question is whether there is any WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. There does appear to be some significant discussion of this channel in scholarship. What we need is a closer examination of these sources. --GGT (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2022 (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ~Styyx^Talk? 16:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRT Türk

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

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Major public channel.

Gazozlu (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I got confused with the different TRT channels. I hereby withdraw this request. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Umut

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

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and doesn't appear to be written in english. -Roxy the dog 19:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in a Turkish-language search either, and has been deleted on tr.wiki likewise for lack of notability. --GGT (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Thieves (band)

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

Not notable, was already previously deleted and re-created. Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for CSD A7: No point in having a deletion discussion. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2022 (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. My apologies for relisting this discussion, I could have closed it as Delete yesterday if I had read the discussion more closely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIFA World Cup statistics

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

After a discussion at WT:FOOTY#2022 FIFA World Cup statistics, this isn't a suitable article - it's mostly WP:OR, with some WP:SYNTH. Everything that isn't simply transcribed from other articles (such as goalscorers and clean sheets) has no encyclopaedic information. We aren't a statistical database, and not a place to store information.

Usually when we have tables, they are based on other reliable sources making the same observations, rather than a WP:SYNTH to show something completely irrelevant. We don't show the total number of man of the match awards someone has won in their career - why do so here? I can't see anything that is here that is suitable to be merged into any other article, as everything of note that is sourced is already in the main 2022 FIFA World Cup article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Agree with Lee Vilenski. Anything relevant that is not already included in the parent article can comfortably be merged into it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments at the linked discussion. Pointless article- we should also delete the corresponding pages for previous WCs too. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- So much is unsourced and trivial information. Kante4 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with nom and the other !votes that this and similar articles for prior events are unnecessary and should be merged with their parents articles. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The World Cups since 2002 have such articles. Sure, you can delete some of the more extraneous detail and merge. But some data, like the Man of the Match (which did start in 2002), maybe create for those cups articles like 2014 FIFA World Cup awards? igordebraga ≠ 19:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. 2014 FIFA World Cup awards doesn't cite any sources except FIFA, which isn't secondary. So it's possible that would get deleted too. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article is also a bad idea, why do we need to split off this information so badly? Data like the Man of the match award is so unencyclopedic. We don't have a source covering the list, we are SYNTHing the table of them, players aren't judged on man of the match awards won, and it also varies from broadcaster to broadcaster (as well as by sponsor) who won the award. I'd actually recommend deleting all such statistics only articles as WP:NOTSTATS. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and unnecessary. Relevant parts could easily be incorporated into the parent article as stated above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, OR. Giant Snowman 22:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Y I think we shouldn't delete it becous 2022 FIFA World Cup is too long so we can marge from it to 2022 FIFA World Cup statistics.

? If we delete it we should delete also:

1/ 2014 FIFA World Cup statistics

2/ 2018 FIFA World Cup statistics

ايـوب (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should delete both of them too. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shall put the remainder up for AfD after this one. The main article doesn't meet WP:SPLIT, as it simply isn't too long. Even if it were, the statistics isn't a suitable split.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.171.230.184 (talk • contribs)
Weak Keep Since I think if we merge everything, the parent article will be too long, but as long as the information is somewhere I don't particularly care where it is. Smartyllama (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't anything that is sourced, or a massive WP:SYNTH issue that isn't already in the main article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that this statistics page about the 2022 FIFA World Cup, is the one place where all this information, regarding the records and statistics for this World Cup, can be easily found in one place. Yes Wikipedia is not the place to simply compile statistics, but this page is useful for a whole community of football fans who want easily accessible information and statistics regarding this World Cup. I get that some statistics are featured on the main 2022 World Cup page, but porting over all the statistics that are just held on this page would cause the other page to become clustered due to the fact that most people who are reading that page don't care for most statistics except the vital ones (goalscorers etc),, whereas this page is for those that have a deeper interest in the subject and want a more detailed look at the statistics that you can't find all in one place as easily as in this article. That's why I think this article should stick around, but let me know what you think.

MessiIsMyBezzie (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. This is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK because (1) much of the stats in this article are trivial, and (2) the parent article can absorb the useful information from this page as it is not terribly long. I support the deletion of these "stats" articles for prior World Cups as well. Frank Anchor 19:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because it is one of the biggest sporting events that exist, it concatenates information that is dispersed in a less objective way in other places. It is of relevance. Svartner (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced information though, right? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article have more than 60 references linked with it. Why is unsourced? Svartner (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of the 11 sections, seven are unsourced. Three of the remaining exist in the main article. The only other one, is a WP:SYNTH and WP:TRIVIA piece on man of the match results, which is not encylopedic, as a non-sporting achievement that people don't measure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the unsourced stuff is determined using basic math, which does not require a source per WP:CALC and is not actually OR or SYNTH as NOR makes quite clear. To pick a statistic at random, "Largest victory margin: 7 goals" is not sourced, but we have sources for all the scores of all the games, and we don't need a citation to determine the margin of victory of each game (basic subtraction) or which margin of victory was the greatest (basic arithmetic as well.) If the scores themselves are sourced, which they are, then a statistic like that does not require a citation. Smartyllama (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how CALC works. CALC means if you have a source that has some information, you can do basic maths on the text in the source to draw a conclusion. It doesn't mean - oh, let's just not source it. We should also never infer information from other Wikipedia articles and use that as a source. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Plus, if no sources are actually talking about things like "largest winning margin" then we shouldn't either. Pure, basic unsourced WP:TRIVIA. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The results of all the matches appear to be cited in this article, we don't have to rely on other articles. And even if they weren't, it's easy enough to cite them, the sources certainly exist so that's not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good enough to source "largest victory margin" to a match result. First, it's a piece of WP:TRIVIA, second this isn't something that is being talked about in sources (and therefore, we shouldn't either). For a better example of how WP:INDISCRIMINATE this list is, we have information sourced to a non-RS about the "oldest coach", and tidbits like "One player each plays in the leagues of Colombia, Hungary and United Arab Emirates.". There is nothing here that isn't already in other articles that needs to exist. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There’re pages like this for every World Cup since 2002, there’s no reason to cut this one after over two decades of precedent. pluma♫ ♯ 20:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those ones are also suitable for deletion Pluma. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out other articles is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Frank Anchor 02:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is valid.--Interpires01 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sitting on the fence because a) while I see valid points for the article to be deleted as indicated in discussions, NOTSTATS and OR notwithstanding, b) WP has enough room to hold all this, there is no size limit. That being said, leaning keep. --Ouro (blah blah) 02:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of WP:OR. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melanella chrysallida

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

Same as Melanella angulata (AfD below). Subject is a taxon inquirendum and not notable. Although validly published, the species is not accepted, and not a synonym of another species that it can be redirected to, merged with, or moved to. Loopy30 (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms. Loopy30 (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melanella. Reywas92^Talk 14:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what the precedent is for articles on taxa inquirenda, but usually we don't maintain articles on taxa that cannot be clearly identified (see those recent cases of unnamed sp. nov. that never received any further ID), which would also suggest deleting this and melanella. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to delete, following Plantdrew's reasoning. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Delete. WoRMS lists Higo et al. "Catalogue and Bibliography of the Marine Shell-Bearing Mollusca of Japan" as the basis of their record. Download Higo's book here. In the first page of the introduction Higo notes: "One unavoidable consequence of basing a work of this kind primarily on literature rather than on independent field and laboratory research is that the number of species recorded will almost certainly exceed that actually present in Nature." On the second page of the introduction, Higo devotes several sentences to discussing the work of Arthur Adams, describing it as a "major problem" due to the "brevity and vagueness of many of whose descriptions was already the target of scathing criticism [in 1895]", Higo goes on to discuss some successes confirming species described by Adams, and conclude with "even the most optimistic reviewer of Adams’ work must concede that the types of many of his species are probably lost". This species was described by Arthur Adams. Higo's treatment of the species is minimal, but gives the distribution as "recorded only from type locality" (which is fair to interpret as "nobody has collected a snail identified as this species since Adams"). WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is predicated on an animal species having a valid name; many of the names authored by Adams aren't considered valid. Delete this and any other articles on Japanese molluscs described by Adams and with status as taxa inquirenda on WoRMS and with Higo as the basis of the WoRMS record. Plantdrew (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalil Wilson

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was created by jgwilsonw. Kalil Wilson's mother is called Jackie Wilson. He fails GNG due to a nlack of significant coverage. NMUSIC isn't passed either. The Met Opera comp he won was a quarterfinal and can't be considered "a major competition". Dougal18 (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be well liked in Berkeley and by the orchestra, based on the sourcing. I don't find anything else about him. Seems to be a local singer, good at what he does. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he has headlined two tours of Russia and appeared in Barcelona so he is more than a local singer imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He may have toured there, but I don't see any supporting documentation, so I still don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a lot of the poorly sourced (or simply not in source) junk. It's been re-added by an editor named 'Kalilw'. EddieHugh (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, looking for some more participation in this deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO. One contributor with no other edits on the 'pedia. Jinian (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind Annadurai

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Besides this source [2], sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, India, and Tamil Nadu. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even Sidebreakball source is not reliable, rest he is not a part of NBA Draft. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sakalbela

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

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, if it needs to be listed, perhaps a small list within Saradha Group financial scandal Jinian (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rahnuma e Deccan

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

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Jinian (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep I am not sure but i search the subject name on Google and got some News featuring the Subject and some information. I updated it and added sources also. This is first comment on any AfD. --Patnaite☝️ (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable because I can find only one significant source from Telangana Today and others are news about death of it's editor The Siasat Daily, Deccan Chronicle and Telangana Today. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, If it is like that. I am so sorry. I didn't understand about it. Thank You. --Patnaite☝️ (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2022 (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 Aajkaal (content has already been merged). Daniel (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajkal Tripura

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

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find sources about the newspaper in internet. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've merged it with Aajkaal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Sette

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

Notability tag has been there for more than 7 years! Just a candidate that failed nomination; it fails WP:POLITICIAN. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on what's in the article and a Google search he's not notable as either a broadcaster or as a politician. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this neither makes nor sources any serious claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. QuintinK (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2022 (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!} 17:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fleta Musaj

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kosovo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SPORTBASIC due to lack of SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2022 (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 Malta in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Start (song)

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

No notability _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 16:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 16:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malta in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, where the content should be found here, as per WP:ATD. This fails WP:NSONGS. --2600:1700:9BF3:220:88E:619E:9003:4C6E (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is a better solution than deleting the article. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 07:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malta in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest: There does not appear to significant coverage of this song in reliable, third-party sources. I think a redirect is preferrable over an outright deletion and I would recommend that instead as a viable redirect target exists. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malta in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG guidelines. Other JESC winning songs have been redirected in a similar manner, so following precedent the same should be conducted here. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malta in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest per above comments. All information currently in this article is relevant for the target. Grk1011 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malta in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Fails WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2022 (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 Welspun Group. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welspun One

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, India, and Maharashtra. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to parent company, Welspun Group. Edwardx (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep, in part, because the delete nomination has been withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maninderjeet Singh Bitta

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

Fails WP:GNG since he is not an elected politician. He only served as Chairperson of All-India Anti-Terrorist Front and President of Indian Youth Congress. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdraw because that time I don't know that he was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly from Amritsar South Assembly constituency. He meets Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Politicians because he has been elected to serve on a given country's legislative body at subnational level. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simple Google searches show an overwhelming amount of reliable sourcing available across three decades to satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article sees significant improvement. "Simple Google searches" don't carry subjects over WP:GNG all by themselves, as not everything that might turn up in a Google search is actually a reliable and/or notability-building source — Google searches also find directories, blogs, news coverage which simply namechecks the subject's existence rather than being substantively about him in a GNG-building way, coincidental name matches on different people, and on and so forth. So just saying that there's other stuff on Google doesn't cut it, and instead you have to show several specific examples of what you think are notability-building sources so that we can actually evaluate whether they're actually as notability-building as you believe. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple Google search shows he passes NPOL, too, winning Amritsar (South) in the 1992 Punjab Legislative Assembly election (p.271). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a member of the 1992 Punjab Legislative Assembly IMO passes WP:NPOL. VickKiang (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2022 (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!} 17:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of lichen checklists

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

This old article is a list of external links. It violates the WP:NOTLINKFARM directive and is doing no service at all to our readers. Most of the links are dead, or link to archived pages. Those archived links are connecting to out-of-date information, since taxonomies have changed radically in recent years, and new species are being added to country lists all the time. We, the members of the lichen task force, suggest it be deleted. MeegsC (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the dead links and archives aren't really serving a purpose at this point in time. I agree with the deletion request. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't even an article, but there isn't an obvious speedy deletion criterion to apply. --RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Music Festival

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

No evidence of notability. Not a single independent source and searches found none. More sources were found for an identically named festival in Ireland which might be more notable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Maine. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:00, 19 December 2022 (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!} 17:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shehnaz Quadery

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

Not elected politician. She has only served as Vice Chairperson of West Bengal Commission for Women and General Secretary of Trinamool Congress which are not notable office. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable party functionary, I find no articles/links about her. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Guild of Film Critics Award for Best Animated Film

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

Wholly sourced by primary sources and imdb. Has been tagged for some time without improvement, was redirected, but that was reverted. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Ball (writer)

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

Article reads like a resume. The sources, many of which are links to nonfunctioning sites (dead links), are all works by the article subject. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Appears to be an autobiography. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not meet WP:BIO Jinian (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable author: a recent article in Times of India refers to him as a "football expert"; this BBC article refers to him as a "Spanish football expert"; his book White Storm: 100 Years Of Real Madrid was Book of the Week in The Independent Nov. 25, 2002; his book Morbo: The Story of Spanish Football was Book of the Week in The Independent Apr. 23, 2001; his book An Englishman Abroad was Book of the Week in The Sunday Times Sept. 12, 2004 Piecesofuk (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's fixable and there is sufficient coverage to justify keeping it per at least WP:NAUTHOR and easily WP:GNG as well, if we were to tell his whole story. The article is indeed a mess at the moment, but it was first written in 2006 (most likely autobiographical) when Wikipedia notability guidelines were less strict. The bio of this notable football writer has historically also been the object of an edit war, because it had a "Controversies" section dealing with a problematic article he wrote for ESPN (since taken down) about Qatar's preparations for the World Cup and the human rights violations (you can find lots online, but to give you an idea, here is a 2013 article in The Big Lead). I would have thought there is a neutral way to mention the controversy and ESPN's apology, etc., without editorialising, but regardless the article is in dire need of an update from beginning to end (I just did a fix of the first couple sentences). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improving, not deleting; sources above show notability. Giant Snowman 19:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is a mess, as others have pointed out, but that does not negate the sources found that show strong notability. Passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2022 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Blaisdell

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

Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria for an individual. Only possible notability was as CEO of California Space Center, but this project appears to have been terminated before becoming notable. Apart from this, she appears to have many interviews with different organisations, but very few of them seem to suggest notability. Please correct me if you find something. Spiralwidget (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some coverage of the Space Center in Lompoc news, but nothing we can use to build an article.Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G4 and G11. Other page titles that are variations of his name are salted so I'll do this one as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas M Chaillan

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

The sources provided doesn’t seem to prove Notability. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 10:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 10:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, no biographical detail about him other than a non-notable WP:1E. Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:Bio Jinian (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC.Intothat darkness 20:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of multiple reliable source from Business Insiders, Bloomberg News, Wall Street Journal and many more. His position been appointed as the first US Chief Software Officer need to be consider his notability. Puvasoca (talk) 7:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and WP:SALT. This article has been repeatedly deleted and is salted in at least two other namespaces. See Nicolas M. Chaillan (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas M. Chaillan) and Nicolas Chaillan (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Chaillan). Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You insincere hidden person you, Wiki is not to be recommended further, in many ways. Delete is all you can. 95.90.178.32 (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PISCIDE

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

unsourced article about some unnotable band probably written by one of the band members (Anke Scheffler is the mastermind of PISCIDE). lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://www.depechemode.de/piscide-veroeffentlichen-neues-album-6051/

Lettherebedarklight seems prejudiced and may have a conflict of interest (COI) - see user profile, username and past edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.178.54 (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

literally how lettherebedarklight 晚安 12:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no critical coverage found, only various streaming sites. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usually indie bands makin 'n' sellin music, no? Seems they are well known in the electro scene. Howbeit, Spotify, amazon 'n' apple released this stuff. 95.90.178.43 (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't here to sell your stuff, we rely on coverage in media outlets. Yes. Oaktree b (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Threat of withholding donations Talk:PISCIDE#Deletion is the great American freedom? YOU want donations, millions of dollars?. Adakiko (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want any donations, the Wikimedia Foundation perhaps does. I don't work for them and I don't work for you. I do this on my own time, for my pleasure. This site doesn't just happen, people need to run it and discuss how things are kept. AfD is about providing reliable information found in neutral sources that have no connection to the subject. GNG in particular, and MUSIC in your case. It helps if the musical group has had some coverage in media or if they've had a song that's charted somewhere. Not everyone gets an article on wikipedia and we need to maintain a certain standard or this all goes down the proverbial toilet. Oaktree b (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not American, so your "freedom" isn't my concern. This is for an international audience and again, we aren't here to help you sell your stuff. Get some coverage happening in reliable sources, then we can revisit. Oaktree b (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some confusion here. Adakiko is referencing a tirade on the band's talk page in which someone else (an anonymous user) tried the Hitler thing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage 95.90 to review [3] Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree b above. Also 95.90.178.53 and PiCNT (apparent COIs) did not supply sources after numerous requests on their talk page and article talk page. Adakiko (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PiCNT has retired from wikipedia. We wish them well Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The German Wiki article was deleted 29 January 2007 as "irrelevant / sla". deletion log Adakiko (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When a band's supporters compare a call for evidence to the Holocaust, you know the prospects for notability are slim. Wikipedia is not a promotional service, and to qualify for an article here, the band would need to get noticed by the reliable music media and not just its own social media and self-upload streaming services. That hasn't happened despite a lengthy career, but thinking that a comparison to Hitler would work is cute in a desperate sort of way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even more red flags, and somewhat disrespectful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Thoroughly non-notable band, completely promotional (Anke Scheffler is the mastermind of PISCIDE, to exhaust synthesizers and sequencer is her passion), article is unsourced, and I could not find refs counting towards WP:GNG/WP:NBAND. VickKiang (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rouhollah Ajamian

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

Nothing that can't be included in Execution_of_Majidreza_Rahnavard#Background_and_crime - Mooonswimmer 23:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 08:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, include information in Execution_of_Majidreza_Rahnavard#Background_and_crime

As a Basiji, Rouhollah Ajamian was equipped with weapons to slaughter protestors marching in peace. He attacked several protestors and as a result, protestors got into a fight with him. Basiji forces are known for brutality and suppression in Iran and are condemned by Iranian people. Rouhollah Ajamian Was an evil man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4300:4620:2C09:CFE5:11A0:D828 (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madhar

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

This page has had a notability tag and sources tag since 2013. Other than lists of people-groups and people with this as part of their name, I can't find anything. Certainly nothing substantial to show notability. The word is clearly in use, maybe there is something useful in another language that others can find. JMWt (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Sikhism, Haryana, Punjab, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any sources at all to suggest this as an ethic group in any way. If I had to guess, Madhar is a surname; several people come up with this or variants as a surname. I am forced to assume that this is a non-notable surname.Spiralwidget (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ishfaq Manzoor

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

Poorly-sourced promo piece on a non-notable writer (?). Sources cited are mostly a mix of articles written by himself, press releases and churnalism, none of which establishes notability. A search finds just the usual social media accounts etc. Earlier draftification was rejected by the author, and a speedy request was removed by a collaborator, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:AUTHOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought the award for Global Teaching Excellence may be notable, but it turns out that 294 people won that award, so it was clearly not as exclusive as I expected. No further sources found when I looked.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per WP:NAUTHOR nor per WP:GNG. I have read the sources pretty closely and agree with the nominator. --bonadea contributions talk 18:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. All sources are primary/non-independent, and I couldn't find better ones. Furthermore, I also did some research on these "Global Teaching Excellence Awards", and all I could find were press releases plus their website, which is filled with stock images (a quick reverse image search brings up plenty of other shady "conferences" using the exact same images) and has little to no information other than a nomination fee-- which makes me think that these so-called awards are handed out to anyone who pays for them. Like a fake diploma. Either way, not notable. Blue Edits (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Mbappé

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:FOOTYN. Uhooep (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. He may turn out to be a notable football player, but as it currently stands this article only exists because of his brother Kylian Mbappe. Merge anything important here onto Kylian's page, and wait until he becomes notable enough to warrant his own article.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FOOTYN completely irrelevant, what matters is GNG, which is met. Alternatively draftily. Giant Snowman 13:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG itself is the overriding notability guide here. No doubt that his brother is a driving force in the coverage on him, but it is considerable coverage nonetheless. Kosack (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The GNG argument may be undermined by the idea here that notability is not inherited. Uhooep (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...which means that relatives of famous people are not inherently/automatically notable. What you fail to recognise is the coverage about Kylian. Whether or not he gets the coverage because of his brother is irrelevant. Giant Snowman 15:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - seems likely he will make appearances in the league possibly starting with PSG but not yet for a notable article as he does not pass WP:FOOTBALL unlike some articles I created when they made their first ever appearance. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kosack. Dr Salvus 20:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but if not, Draft - either one is fine by me. WP:GNG in my opinion is met, which overrules any other notability guideline in this case. However, if some disagree, and if that is the consensus, then I would advise against deletion and would recommend drafting the article, since he is likely to become more prominent in the future than he already is. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's played a pro match with PSG, albeit a friendly. To my mind, any kid that is playing for a top flight club at 15 is notable, no matter who his brother is. 2600:1700:E42:A5FF:E5:1257:B383:494E (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in multiple WP:RS including Le Figaro and The Athletic Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG, NFOOTY is not relevant. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2022 (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!} 00:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Banerjee

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

This is an interesting one - I don't know if the subject is notable given that he was an assistant bishop, but I suspect that's not enough. I can't find much else about him other than he existed. The National Portrait Gallery in London has an image of him 1, I don't know if that is enough, but I suspect it isn't. They also have some bio information that I can't find anywhere else, so I'm not sure if they should be used as a RS. There are few tiny mentions that I can see that are not on the page. I would be interested to see what others can find and think about whether there is enough to meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The NPG source does count as one source towards GNG. The cited newspaper article is a primary source that just backs up some details from the NPG. The OUP directory is not anything but a list. WP:NBISHOP doesn't apply to the assistant bishop of a non-critical jurisdiction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the NPG source is already very interesting. I have added some information about his trip to Australia in 1936 where he gave a series of influential speeches and was received as Metropolitan of India. Problem was that for some strange reason the name of Bishop Banerjee on this Wikipedia page was mutilated in the course of the edits. To search for him, try J.S.C. Banerjee or Bishop Banerjee, not John Banerjee. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep second native Indian bishop of the Anglican communion is significant and, as for any Anglican communion bishop, there appear to be sources available. Jahaza (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources, enough to demonstrate notability in my view: e.g. 1, 2. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage that indicates he was a Bishop in a major denomination Atlantic306 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brice Noubon

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage from independent sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find is a trivial mention in Loop News Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ylaire Joachim

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage from independent sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only references I can find are databases like National Football Teams, Soccerway etc. which are clearly not acceptable for WP:SPORTBASIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mervyn Hazelwood

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage from independent sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Antigua and Barbuda. JTtheOG (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything better than trivial coverage in the Antigua Observer such as this squad list mention and this match report. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pir Muhammad Iqbal

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

Only cited sources are op-eds by the article subject. No significant coverage came up in a search for sources, with two caveats:

the search was complicated by there being other people who go by "Iqbal Ahmed"
I searched for English-language sources

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and India. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I did a further search (much with the same caveats) and failed to find much else to verify the article. The person seems to fail WP:BIO and I don't believe there is any other cross-wiki content on the person.
Leaning delete. Does not seem notable, I could not find any mentions. Draft:Iqbal_Ahmad appears to be about the same person. CT55555(talk) 07:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. and other editors said above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability per the sources cited, and the creator hasn't come up with anything better since this was nommed almost a week ago, which strongly suggests there isn't anything better to be found. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2022 (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!} 04:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of chief ministers from the Aam Aadmi Party

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

Fails WP:N, As there are only two chief ministers from this relatively new party which doesn't have a long established electoral history unlike the two established national parties, the BJP and INC] — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of two people is not a list. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All though it is valid that they have only 2 CM, but just for the record, it is now a well-established national party. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Michael Gloria

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

Sources lack SIGCOV and/or reliability. IMDB is unreliable and the third source is based on the IMDB biography. Deadline source is only a short mention. Other sources included in article and a WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing substantial. Fails WP:GNG ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only appears to have had minor roles. Nothing notable found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2022 (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!} 03:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly small 1 line roles, I couldnt find notability in these.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:42, 20 December 2022 (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 Red Clay Ramblers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Craver

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. I didn't find any media coverage to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and North Carolina. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Red Clay Ramblers. Some of this information may be useful on the Red Clay Ramblers article. Craver only seems to be notable from his association with this band. There is very little independent reliable coverage of his work outside the band.Spiralwidget (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Red Clay Ramblers if the content can be reliably sourced otherwise just redirect. Not enough coverage for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2022 (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. If anyone would like to work on this article in Draft space, contact me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Improvement Proposals

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. Has not improved since. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are clearly inadequate to support notability. BD2412 T 02:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and previous AfD. Notability isn't established. Bsoyka (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete due to lack of notability CT55555(talk) 07:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More crypto, um, stuff? I don't even understand what this article is trying to explain to me, and sourcing is useless in trying to explain it. Various links to non-RS sites don't help the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination rationale Bruxton (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or maybe draftify - there is a lot of information here, and GitHub may hit the expertise exception for self-publication. However, while I know a little about software development -- and find this on its face to be a reasonable article, not unlike a number that I have edited elsewhere -- I am not certain that it's a good Wikipedia article. In particular, the ratio of citations to assertions is still quite low, even if I don't personally object to a citation to a GitHub project. It's par for the course in software development, but I guess it would still be a primary source that does not demonstrate notability. I suggest running this past some people with specific knowledge of the process/projects involved. I would defer to such a person's opinion, which is why I say weak. It may also be too close to an instruction manual. And yet. Bitcoin is important and this is how it happens apparently. It is true that like making sausage, it is neither pretty nor very readable. Elinruby (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2022 (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 Black Label Society. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Ondich

AfDs for this article:

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

Recommend redirecting title to Black Label Society. The previous trip to AfD resulted in 'no consensus' and was basically a tug-of-war between editors who feel that a person who has been a member of a notable band is entitled to a biography, period; versus those editors who applied a more centrist view of biography notability. I'm bringing this back to AfD 15 years later, noting that all news results I've found were inclusive of Ondich but not about him and that two Encyclopedias—Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal Music and Encyclopedia of Popular Music—mention Ondich in the context of Black Label Society and Zakk Wylde, respectively. Both of those encyclopedias are available to borrow (free registration needed) from the Internet Archive. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom. Note that the IP who objected to the redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Ondich&diff=1128205467&oldid=1099743219 is from Ohio, same as the musician... kinda suspicious --FMSky (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 in 50 chance. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceyockey: It's not as though Wikipedia is limited to Americans. BD2412 T 04:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 20 December 2022 (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!} 07:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathews Gómes

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

Unable to find sufficient reliable sources, only passing mentions like 1 and 2. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:30, 12 December 2022 (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!} 02:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any sources for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any sufficient sources after a quick search. Bsoyka (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2022 (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 Charles III. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles III of England

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

Charles III is the most likely wp:primary topic. This title should redirect there with a hatnote to the pretender per WP:2DABS. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charles III: It doesn't make any sense to have a disambiguation page with two items only. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As closer of the RfD, I'm not going to !vote here, but will say that this is not true. There are many disambiguation pages with only two entries, and that is explicitly allowed by guideline. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 4 § Charles III of England (disambiguation) for context of why this was restored. The RfD consensus should be taken only as objection to the bold retarget, not necessarily consensus to definitively have a DAB at this title (which is beyond the jurisdiction of RfD). Courtesy pings @TartarTorte, SkyWarrior, Jay, and A7V2. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The convenience of hatnoting per WP:ONEOTHER is to avoid readers an additional click. Compare that with the inconvenience of having this show up at the top of the Charles III article: "Charles III of England" redirects here. For the pretender to the English throne, see Charles Edward Stuart. Charles III is a page that gets an average of 50,000 daily views! The pageviews of Stuart had shot up to 25,000 around the time the King chose his title, but now is in the 1000s. I don't see a reason to continue giving importance to the one-other via the hatnote, considering that views for Charles III of England are in single digits (It was 40,000 just for one day of the transition). Keep the disambiguation page as a neat solution. Jay 💬 08:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charles III per the above. As neat a solution as the disambiguation page may be to having a hatnote, that does not render the phrase ambiguous. Charles III is the clear primary topic. BD2412 T 15:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is an argument about what the primary topic is. Unless your point is that per WP:ONEOTHER we should not / can not have a permanent disambiguation page. It talks about a {{One other topic}} which is supposed to be temporary, but does WP:ONEOTHER limit the use of one primary dabs? Jay 💬 05:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Charles III of the United Kingdom is the primary topic for "Charles III of England", then per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT that is where this page should point, absent any IAR argument to the contrary. However, the "if" there is important, and really the main question for this AfD to answer. Is he the PTOPIC? Charles Edward Stuart styled himself as "of England", but never actually held that title; whereas the current King Charles is often called that but as a matter of law neither holds nor claims that title, as there is no longer a Kingdom of England. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the general doctrine of WP:SMALLDETAILS it seems to me that even though Charles III rules over England, he isn't not the WP:PTOPIC of Charles III of England as the role of King of England does not currently exist, as noted above. Stuart did not hold that role, but called himself King of England. It seems to me a cleaner solution to leave this as is without having to deal with additional hat notes on Charles III as noted by Jay. TartarTorte 00:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a split between those wanting to Keep and those wanting a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectto Charles III and put a see also to the other article at the top of the Charles III page. It seems clear that one is clearly more notable than the other, but both are notable enough for an article and there aren't other articles that could be on that disambiguation page. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charles III. The existing dab page Charles III (disambiguation) which is already in the hatnote is more than sufficient to serve the purposes of anyone searching for the pretender. I will add that Bonnie Prince Charlie claimed the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland, so the title "King of England" is not wholly accurate for either figure, which I would say voids the SMALLDETAILS concerns. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charles III. Although incorrect, the British sovereign is frequently referred to as the King of England, especially abroad, and this is the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2022 (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!} 07:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed E. Shaheed

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are of him being elected to a political party. Hardly enough for general notability. Even then, it's one mention. Can't exactly confirm that it's him for sure. BriefEdits (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Politicians BriefEdits (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all kinds of sources that hit on the name, none seem to be about this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2022 (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. References found that address the nominator's concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get Rollin' (film)

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

Non notable film, poorly referenced. Jax 0677 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep: ~~No significant coverage found in a quick search.~~ Borderline WP:GNG pass. Bsoyka (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC) (edited 21:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
@Bsoyka: There are two detailed articles from The New York Times and The New Yorker- how is that not WP:SIGCOV? VickKiang (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, must've skimmed right past those. They were marked unreliable by a tool I use because of the weird Blogspot links. Updated to weak keep. Bsoyka (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was the same issue for me as well- my script highlighted all of these as unreliable... VickKiang (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or maybe merge. Limited information could easily be incorporated into Roller disco. Jinian (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am also OK with a merge or redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete, not likely to improve as an article~~. Shwcz (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article references three reviews in The New York Times, The New Yorker and Indiewire which are significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so passing WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG and NFILM through reviews cited in the article. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The reviews from The New York Times and The New Yorker appear to be WP:RS, independent and WP:SIGCOV. Indiewire's one-paragraph coverage is only debatably SIGCOV, but two solid sources and one somewhat weak one would IMO make WP:GNG borderline passed. As The NY Times and The New Yorker are prominent nation-wide publications, these critics are likely nationally known and would pass WP:NFILM criteria 1; @Shwcz:, I've also added a reception section, which would probably partially address your concern. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK2. Obviously bad-faith nomination. As deletion is not clean-up, content should be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of industrialisation

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

article written from a communist perspective Druaga18 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the reasons i believe the whole article needs to be deleted:

Article uses Marxist language such as "exploitation" and "bourgeoisie"

Article has a large amount of outsourced claims

The Article is very poorly written

The map used is horrendous

I could keep going on for reasons why this article needs to be deleted, but just read it for yourself and the reason(s) for deletion is evident. Druaga18 (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems well-sourced, unsure about the communist perspective when it quotes steam engines in England, which was never communist from what I remember. RS sources used, could perhaps use a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and justification by the WP:SPA nominator to delete is not convincing. CT55555(talk) 01:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as article meets WP:GNG and is well-sourced other than a couple citation needed tags. I'm not entirely sure about the "article written from a communist perspective" argument, the article appears written from a neutral point of view to me. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 05:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rationale for deletion boils down to arguing that the article so violates NPOV that it requires WP:TNT, but I don't see it that way. There are several paragraphs that are unreferenced (or weakly referenced), and improvements could be made to the article. However, WP:DEL-CONTENT wisely notes that if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, and I would suggest that Druaga make gradual improvements to the page in line with the WP:BRD process rather than seeking deletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 08:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Badly written is not a reason to delete, and "communism?" this is a WP:GNG about a known phenomena in this history of Earth, industrialization.

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG wnd contains WP:RS. As above editors susggested the communism part cited by the nominator could be rewritten to maintain WP:NPOV Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how notability would be affected by the content currently in the article. Did you mean to refer to WP:NPOV? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was meant to be WP:NPOV

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG Bruxton (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2022 (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!} 00:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deji vs Alex Wassabi

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

Fails WP:EVENTS and WP:GNG. The sourcing in the article is poor (Youtube, Twitter, Mirror are considered unreliable), and other coverage I was able to find for this event was at best routine. As for EVENTS, I highly doubt this boxing match will be regarded as historically significant. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Boxing, and Montana. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Mirror, the US Sun and other unreliable sources. Nothing for GNG.Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Bsoyka (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2022 (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!} 00:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

African Rowing Beach Sprint Championships

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. The references appear to be databases or a routine announcement listing results. WP:BEFORE found non-SIGCOV or non-RS articles, 1, 2, 3. VickKiang (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, the event is in the past with no significant coverage or impact. Jinian (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References do not work, not notable. Cerulean Depths (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Africa, and Tunisia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 20 December 2022 (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.

Leave a Reply