THC Science

< March 17	March 19 >

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 delete. I don't find the sole keep vote compelling, given that it does not even articulate how the subject is "clearly notable", let alone provide any sources that back up that claim. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geeetech[edit]

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

~~Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT. This page is clearly a marketing piece and has no place on Wikipedia.~~ Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the coverage is about their 3D printers, not the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there is almost to no coverage about the actual company. During my search, this was the only source I found about the company: [1]. Carpimaps (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per explanation above. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found about the company itself. Most of the results on Google are stuff like review articles and how-to tutorials. Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable and no evidence of the claimed COI is given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have striked part of my nomination rationale that I realize was inappropriate (this should be decided on WP:ANI). But this article's notability is very weak. Could you please share at least two in-depth articles (independent coverage) about Geeetech? "Clearly notable" but how? US-Verified (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable independent sources about the company itself. Almost all the sources in the article are product reviews, some of which are on sites that look like little more than promotional blogs or even actual storefronts. And the article is mainly a listing of products, running afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N25 Carrigtwohill-Cobh Interchange[edit]

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

Interchanges are required to follow WP:GNG. The article is unsourced and Google has no relevant hits. Google Maps [2] shows this is an ordinary interchange (i.e. not with another dual carriageway road) so I do not expect there will be significant coverage. Rs chen7754 22:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ireland. Rs chen7754 22:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing special about this interchange to warrant an individual article. Dough4872 01:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the article has apparently never been cited since creation in 2009 and fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 07:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a run-of-the-mill highway interchange. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless sources turn up to overcome notability concerns (and I'm doubtful they will) the article subject is non-notable. Rupples (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interchanges are mostly non-notable, this one certainly isn't notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to restore the Mercedes Homes page or provide me with a archive copy? There was some historical information that I was hoping to retain. ISUpilot (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Homes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Some google clutter about homes in Mercedes, Texas, and coverage of bankruptcy, but nothing to indicate WP:ORG level coverage of this former company/ Star Mississippi 22:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Florida. Star Mississippi 22:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company. TH1980 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article subject doesn’t have demonstrated WP:NOTABILITY in the form of WP:SIGCOV by independent WP:RS. Ultimately, all this together fails to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:NORG as the relevant policies (let alone WP:GNG). Shawn Teller (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinos Christou[edit]

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

Christou has some coverage but I can't find any significant coverage that is completely independent of him so I'm not seeing a passing of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Alpha News is copied and pasted from an Omonia press release so obviously is not independent and Phile News mentions that he is the cousin of Constantinos Soteriou and Pieros Sotiriou but there's nothing else that we can build a biography from there. Sigma Live is basically just a quote from him so there's not enough independent content to call it WP:SIGCOV either. As SPORTBASIC says that Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources we need to remember that sources like Omonoia 24 do not confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not reliable enough. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A careful and thorough search on my end turns up insufficient WP:RS WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability and meet WP:SPORTBASIC guidelines. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Icon Loft[edit]

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

Non-notable building. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 12:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 12:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ImperialMajority (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing anything that meets WP:NBUILD or WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youthful Spirit[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a student choir. There are things here (mainly touring) that would be valid notability claims if the article were properly sourced, but there's nothing that would confer an automatic free inclusion pass without any sourcing to support it.
As all the information here is a decade old, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived British media coverage than I've got can find enough proper sourcing to salvage this, but none of it is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On balance Delete. I have searched south-west England newspapers on Infotrac Newsbank specifically to find this, because the phrase is commonly used in other contexts. There is a passing one-line reference in the Bristol Evening Post (14 November 2003), and again in the same newspaper on 23 November 2006. The Central Somerset Gazette and Weston and Worle News also give passing reference in 2008 articles, as do the Wells Journal and Fosse Way Magazine in 2009. Subsequently we see passing references in the Somerset Guardian and Western Daily Press, but again all these simply say that it is doing certain things, and are not specifically about the choir. I do recognise some of the claims made in the Wikipedia article in some of these newspaper articles, so I suppose they could be used to back up some of the claims made, but I am not sure if the subject is really important enough or if the newspapers were read on a wide enough scale. By 2012/13 the Cornish Guardian alludes to them but merely says that they "entertained diners" or "will be singing a selection of music from Les Misérables and Godspell". Passing references continue but again are of little substance; in recent years most uses of the phrase are in other contexts. Again, there are many choirs like this in the world, and most of them don't have Wikipedia articles: Anglosphere ones shouldn't be privileged over all the others. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find significant coverage about this choir. -- Whpq (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and ORG per nom, RobinCarmody did a good BEFORE and found nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Promos, primary and mentions do not show N. No objection to a redirect after deletion to Churchill Community School, but there is no properly sourced content for a merge; since the article involves living persons, I'd oppose a redirect without a deletion. // Timothy :: talk 17:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication in what’s available in sources, including my own search, that the subject meets WP:NORG or WP:GNG. I could see keeping the article if either of these were met, but clearly they aren’t so I think deletion is the correct outcome, since WP:GNG and WP:NORG aren’t satisfied. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G11 by User:Widr (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Havocalist[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper who fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:BIO, only refs are to the subject's social media and searching doesn't turn up anything. Valenciano (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Autobiography/vanity page, not notable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zakovat[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM/WP:NTVNATL. Two sources in the article are not about the show, the first is about a construction project and the second is a biographical article about a figure associated with the subject. BEFORE showed social media and promotional material. Others mention it in passing while talking about the genre. Nothing that is independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject (this particular show) directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 17:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SJJIF Worlds Gi & NoGi Tournament (NABJJ)[edit]

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

Practically unsourced, purely statistics, no standalone notability apparent. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability and no significant independent coverage. The entire article is a listing of results from the organization's website. Papaursa (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NSPORTS. "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." // Timothy :: talk 18:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to K. Viswanath#Filmography. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient quality. However no case made not to redirect. Star Mississippi 12:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subhodhayam[edit]

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

Currently, there is not a single in-depth reference from an independent, reliable secondary source. Even the Rotten Tomatoes site has zero reviews (and I've actually never seen that before). At least one of the sources, this one, doesn't even mention the film. Was draftified, but returned to mainspace immediately, without any additional in-depth sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to K. Viswanath who is the director and writer. Not enough information to make an independent film article. Sources provided only show that the film existed and who played in it. Viswanath's article doesn't even indicate it was a significant work. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retain The article (Satisfies Notability guidelines). Following are independent sources included in the article, in addition the article also contains published news paper sources highlighting about the film which was also remade in Hindi. The article is not based on rotten tomatoes and imdb. They are just supporting sources.

Notability is well established in the article Fostera12 (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These only show the film exists, not that it is notable. These are equivalent to IMDb, especially Moviebuff, Filmiclub, MovieGQ. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. The film is discussed in scholarly sources and in retrospectives of K. Viswanath's career. It is a notable film. Reviews would be available in Telugu dailies of the time like Andhra Patrika and Andhra Jyothi whose archives may not have been digitized. Reo kwon (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the above 4 sources include a brief mention, and three db entries, with no in-depth coverage.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided are not adequate for notability. Coverage needs to be in-depth. I found nothing in a search. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Retain~~ - added new sources
https://www.4to40.com/poems-for-kids/poems-in-hindi/mal-de-gulal-mohe-ayi-holi-ayi-re-indeevar/
https://indiancine.ma/VGS/info Fostera12 (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which is in-depth about the film. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Independent sources Retain
4to40 site above link is indepth about the film as it is clearly mentioning as original to Kamchor
Subhodayam screening (kanakamahal theater, Nellore, 1980, Nov) in Zaminryot telugu newsarchive, pg 10 - http://www.zaminryot.com/pdf/1980/Nov/7-nov-1980.pdf
Theatrical release poster - http://telugucineblitz.blogspot.com/2012/06/subhodayam-1980.html

Most importantly this scholarly article is clearly an independent source highlighting about the film - https://intellectdiscover.com/content/journals/10.1386/dmas.1.3.413_1 is found from google scholar article links provided by Wikipedia. Suggest to help retain this article, without putting emphasis on somebody's personal bias and competition. Fostera12 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fostera12: I couldn't find the date and review in Zaminryot — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for your input, I have updated my comment, but the source zaminryot is reliable, and independent. so you would want to retain the article ? Fostera12 (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ three editors (including me) would want to retain the article considering enough sources (in addition to 3 independent sources) which establishes the notability of the film.Fostera12 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources don't establish notability, significant coverage does, of which there isn't close to enough sourcing to satisfy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep: In addition to this Latha Srinivasan from India today cites~~ "While Siri Siri Muvva (1976) showed his understanding of the craft, it was Sankarabharam (1980) that proved his mastery over it. In fact, many of director K Viswanath’s films were far ahead of their time. K Viswanath started to actively explore human relationships and social issues, and each of his films struck a chord with the audience. If he spoke about untouchability in Saptapadi, then he highlighted the respectability manual labour deserved in Subhodayam and Swayamkrushi". (https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/k-viswanath-passes-away-92-why-the-filmmaker-par-excellence-was-a-guru-and-legend-in-indian-cinema-2329928-2023-02-03). This clearly highlights Subhodayam as one of K. Viswanath's most notable social films. Note: Please read all the sources carefully, dont just blindly say not notable just for arguments sake. I do not have any personal interest in this. This is commonsense. It is okay if independent sources lack review of the film in this case. The article is extremely well sourced over all.

- Time of India cites

"Bollywood Calling - The 1976 film Siri Siri Muvva changed the way the audience viewed his work, with his films becoming more artistic since then. He remade it in Hindi in 1979 as Sargam". The 1982 film Kaamchor was a remake of Subhodayam

- SB Vijaya Mary of The Hindu cites

"He followed it up with more remakes of his Telugu hits Saptapadi with Sridevi and Mithun Chakraborty as Jaag Utha Insaan, Shubodayam with Rakesh Roshan and Jayaprada as Kaamchor, Swati Mutyam as Eshwar with Anil Kapoor and Vijayashanti, Jeevana Jyothi as Sanjog with Jeetendra and Jayaprada, Subhalekha as Sangeeth with Rakesh Roshan and Rati Agnihotri, and many more". (https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/k-viswanath-who-passed-away-on-the-43rd-anniversary-of-his-iconic-film-sankarabharanam-broke-star-stereotypes-in-his-films/article66466706.ece) This clearly highlights Subhodayam as one of K. Viswanath's hit films In addition, this is clearly significant coverage of the film and article is significantly improved Fostera12 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cf WP:NF

The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.

Which is the case here.— MY, OH, MY! 18:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

Majority of the editors would keep and retain the article. Kindly do the needful and close the discussion asap, so that I can focus on improving the other aspects of the article.Fostera12 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fostera12, you can only cast one "vote" and you have already voted 3 or 4 times. Plus, AFD discussions last at least one week so this discussion won't be closed for a few more days (if it's not relisted for another week). Have patience and please do not bludgeon this discussion. I think you have made enough comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay got it. My intention is not bludgeon. I do not know that I can caste one "vote" Fostera12 (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In most retrospectives of K. Viswanath's career, the film is discussed or mentioned. Here are some from major Telugu media outlets that mentioned the film or its themes: 10TV, TV9, Eenadu, NTV, News18. Reo kwon (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Fostera12 (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mith[edit]

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

Very highly advertorialized and inadequately referenced WP:BLP of a musician. While there are things stated here that would be valid notability claims if they were properly sourced, the writing tone is so highly advertorialized that it's hard to sort out what's really true and what's promotional bumf, and the sourcing is a contextless and unfootnoted mix list of links, not all of which are actually reliable or WP:GNG-building. As I'm not an expert in locating Ugandan media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find sufficient referencing to neutralize this -- but Wikipedia is not a free PR platform where musicians are entitled to keep articles written and referenced like this. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Uganda. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bit of flowery language (that I've just cleaned up) does not justify deletion. Someone else can easily fix the lack of inline citations given the shortness of the article. small jars tc 16:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources, both New Vision and The Observer seem reliable. small jars tc 16:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article survives, the title should be fixed (moved) so "Mith" is capitalized correctly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Admittedly, this one is a close call because the rapper's albums have been reviewed by New Vision and Observer, which might be reliable sources in their general operations. However, the reviews are very short and not particularly journalistic (e.g. "one thing this brother is proud of is that he has never lost focus"). I don't think that a few very brief reviews qualify as the significant coverage that is necessary here, and I can find nothing else beyond the usual streaming and social media services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, only refs are promo which does not support the content in the article or N. I removed the unreferenced BLP material and promo links. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flood Risk Reduction Program[edit]

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

Non-notable program, "authorized, was not implemented". The page is orphaned for a decade. gNews search shows irrelevant textual matches. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an unimplemented program for which I could not locate significant secondary sourcing suggesting it is notable in spite of failure to be implemented. An unimplemented program would need to have substantial coverage such that the debate or some other factory surrounding it might be notable, and I’m just not seeing that here. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 PDC Calendar[edit]

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

Zero in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a terrible nomination, moreover using false arguments. The major source is from the official PDC website.^[1] Moreover, there are other independent sources as well. The calendar itself is a very useful and clear source of information about all the events taking place under the PDC banner in a given year. I myself use it regularly. I don't see a single reason to delete this valuable piece of information. Penepi (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other than your personal attack on the article (which you have since changed), you should understand that primary sources do not establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you're bringing it up, when - as you write yourself - I deleted it MYSELF in the meantime. I'm sorry if I touched your fragile ego, I hope you can deal with it. Now to the essentials -- the primary source does not rule out notability at the same time. This is an official source, it couldn't be more official, so where is the problem? It must be clear to you that the given source contains correct information. Or if I added some secondary source there, would it suddenly be sufficient? Actually, what you are proposing is to delete one valuable article on the basis that it now contains 'only' a primary source, despite the fact that the source is official and correct. Breathtaking. Penepi (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The official website may be reliable for content, but it does precisely nothing to establish notability or meet policy or guideline requirements. Significant coverage in independent sources is required. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unless we have independent (preferably secondary) reliable sources discussing these "WP:NSEASONS" to a significant extent (not just routine reports containing little more than results) such that reasonable prose can be written, and/or if these calendars are simply duplicating the PDC website, then they are a clear policy fail. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this pointing to different guidelines is nothing but nitpicking. With the vast majority of articles, one would be able to find some "criteria" that the given article does not meet and thus we could literally delete 99% of the articles. Specifically, according to your logic, for example, let's delete this as well. Penepi (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point of WP:AfD. It is not "to find some criteria that the given article does not meet", it is to confirm that it passes WP:GNG, i.e. "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Whether the information is correct is not the issue here, it is whether the topic is notable. Clearly "the official PDC website" is not independent of the subject, it is their calendar. Also see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. eg WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:USEFUL. Rather than lambasting editors for their comments, you need to be convincing them that it satisfies GNG. Nigej (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite naturally, every tournament has significant coverage in the media (i.e. reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Penepi (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about the individual tournaments, it's about the 2023 PDC Calendar. Is the "2023 PDC Calendar" a notable topic? GNG says that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Has the "2023 PDC Calendar" received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Currently there's no indication that it has. Nigej (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a notable topic? Is this a notable topic? And I could go on. Although formally the names of the articles are different, in fact they are the same - calendars. Then let's delete those too. Again, problems are being looked for where they are not under the guise of some officialdom. Penepi (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See: [3] [4] indicating that perhaps 2023 in association football is a notable topic. And you're still pushing the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Best to come up with positive reasons to keep it. After all I could use your argument to justify keeping an article on the Barnsley Darts League Calendar. Not all calendars are equal. Nigej (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A truly fascinating argument. So actually the relevance of an article is determined solely by how frequently the given topic is mentioned in the media? So when there is a topic that could become popular, there is actually no chance because it is not in the media enough? Despite the fact that these are de facto the same thing (calendar), just in a different sport? Absolutely ridiculous. Penepi (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my argument. It's the fundamental basis on which Wikipedia operates and it determines which articles we have. I'm absolutely amazed that you were not aware of it before. See WP:N WP:GNG. Nigej (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I could contribute to your amazement. Not everyone makes studying Wiki guidelines a priority in their lives. Anyway, you wanted examples of the notability of this topic, I provided them. In the case of football calendar, you used two articles to indicate its notability, I gave you three for darts, and I could go on. Penepi (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try to search better next time. See: [5] [6] [7]

Please stop with these diversions; it is unproductive and irrelevant. If you want this article (and those for other years) to be kept you will need to show why this article meets policy and guidelines requirements. The usual means of doing this is by demonstrating the required coverage exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do we have ANY third-party sources talking about this subject, and how it meets WP:GNG and WP:NLIST? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all due to lack of sourcing that demonstrates notability of the calendar itself. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Plenty of independent sources have some variation of a list of the darts events in 2023. Sky Sports, Darts News, Sporting Life, Planet Sport, Live Darts, BBC, PDPA, Master Caller. Revoking my vote. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Sky Sports article has any in-depth coverage (Live Darts is not a reliable source).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sporting Life has in depth coverage of every single tournament/final that has taken place so far. That's two independent sources covering the concept of the year 2023 in the PDC. There's also vast coverage on Online Darts. Your reason for nomination was "Zero in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources" - this is demonstrably untrue. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would go to the individual tournaments/final notability, not to the the notability of the calendar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the events make up the PDC events in 2023? I think your issue seems to be with the concept of the name "PDC Calendar", so do you think the article should be renamed? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have is that we already have an article 2023 PDC Pro Tour which covers many/most of these events. We also have 2023 PDC Players Championship series, 2023 PDC Challenge Tour series and 2023 PDC Women's Series. The 2023 PDC Calendar seems to duplicate much of these others articles. eg 2023 PDC Pro Tour#Players Championships is basically the same as the Players Championships (purple) entries here. As such it seems to me that the only justification for keeping this article would be if the "calendar" aspect of it was a well-discussed topic, which is pretty doubtful IMO. As it is it just looks like WP:INDISCRIMINATE and excessive stats, see WP:NOTSTATS. Nigej (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Fair do's Nigej. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nigej beat me to the punch. No, I don't think it should be renamed. We already have articles which cover the subject. This is simply a list, without any substantial coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol he hardly beat you to the punch when you proposed deletion seven days ago. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol... no, I meant his above response before I could respond to your question. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol... no, your grounds for proposal are still invalid. Nigej has raised a highly pertinent point that you haven't in the past seven days, that's the reason for deletion, that the article already exists. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

merge and delete - we already have 2023 PDC Pro Tour, for where the notable events should be listed. We aren't a directory of all information about a subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete Per my comments and Lee Vilenski's above. As noted, we also have 2023 PDC Pro Tour and the current article is largely a duplicate of that in a different (calendar, i.e. strictly chronological) form. Little evidence has been provided that this calendar aspect is notable. Nigej (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Wise[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. I did not find any sources that pass WP:GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, Television, and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbojet747 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least for now - Just looked at his page views and something is going on. From 21 daily views to overnight hitting over 4K views. Obviously there is something brewing outside what sources are currently saying. Probably better notable citations are coming and it would be a shame to have to rewrite this article. Keep an eye on it. Sgerbic (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on is that he appeared extensively in the recently released and very popular Netflix docuseries MH370: The Plane That Disappeared. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And has been doing the rounds on talk shows about said docuseries. Unfortunately it hasn't resulted in any significant coverage about him in reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to wait on a AfD when he is hot on the tour circuit right now. Sgerbic (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? ––FormalDude (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think he will become that notable overnight because of a documentary. Mike Allen 13:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some coverage about his theories surrounding the flight of MH370 that disappeared, most seem fanciful... No other coverage for this person Oaktree b (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:RSs. Six out of nine current sources are primary sources. The seventh is IMDb, the eighth is an interview, and the ninth is independent but brief. A google search yielded nothing redeemable. Chanaka L (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic Environmental Center[edit]

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

Was deleted yesterday: 23:00, 17 March 2023 Galobtter talk contribs deleted page Hellenic Environmental Center (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) [8] .

Recreated today, same author and article, request speedy delete and some salt. // Timothy :: talk 19:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I have tagged the page for speedy deletion as a page deleted per deletion discussion. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G4 does not apply as this was not previously deleted by discussion. WP:G11 may still apply, but my preference would be to delete this by consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GIven the author's behavior, some salt might be helpful. // Timothy :: talk 22:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still reads like an advertisement. Let’s season the deletion with some salt while you’re at it! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear WP:PROMO. I also just looked into this and found that the article was very recently deleted. Salting to prevent recreation may be helpful. Shawn Teller (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Bence[edit]

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

Accomplished but non-notable author/consultant. No in-depth, secondary, independent coverage. Mooonswimmer 16:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo, all coverage found is her trying to better people, nothing about her. Appears to be a marketing campaign. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding really anything. Article seems to have been created by multiple SPAs. Valereee (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Puente[edit]

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

Cannot find evidence of her meeting WP:NCREATIVE. Online searches come up with mostly her social media profiles and biographies on the various news stations she worked at. Being the daughter of the late Tito Puente does not add notability per WP:NOTINHERITED and while the article says she won an Emmy, I cannot find a source for that. Even if she did, it is most likely a local Emmy, which many local journalists and anchormen have won, not a national won which would merit an article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This coverage in Forbes [9] and this magazine [10]. Not the best, but it's coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTINHERITED is part of an essay titled: "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". I'd consider useful for countering arguments, but not for starting them, as nobody has claimed she is notable on the basis of inheritance. WP:GNG is the relevant policy. I think she meets it, due to the significant coverage, in which she has been described in detail, as a celebrity, several times. I'd normally list the sources, but you can see them easily by looking at the article, now that I've updated it (it had only 2 about an hour ago, but are many more now). CT55555(talk) 20:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a few sources, and it looks like plenty to me. — Chris Capoccia 💬 22:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not sure if it has enough significant sources. 47.23.10.234 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a common misconception that we should discount sources that mention a person's famous relatives. In actual fact, notability very often is inherited, since children of celebrities are more likely to attract significant coverage in reliable sources. pburka (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Gold (pet food)[edit]

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Pet food maybe? No indication of notability, it's just a brand of pet food with typical mentions in industry publications. Valereee (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should be either kept or deleted, not redirected. Inclusion at Pet food would be totally WP:UNDUE, and would be to promote this brand over all others that are not mentioned there. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does redirecting require coverage? I feel like in the case of commercial brands we could simply redirect without needing to even...well, mention? I dunno, willing to hear reasons or policy against. Valereee (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RASTONISH. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is PR copy on top of PR copy on top of PR copy. Not an original word to be found. Nate • (chatter) 21:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seiya Da Costa Lay[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, since the deprecation of NFOOTY, it would need to have in-depth sourcing to show they pass GNG. Has been draftified and recreated in mainspace without enough improvement to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21], among many many more Indonesian sources. Clearly significant figure in Indonesian football with ongoing career in fully pro Indonesian top flight and youth international career, both of which receive lots of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’m seeing plenty of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NOTABILITY. I would see the case for deletion if WP:NOTABILITY wasn’t evident in the form of significant coverage by reliable independent sources. However, the available sources and coverage of the subject demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY meeting WP:GNG, so the correct policy-based outcome would be keeping. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tamil Nadu Premier League. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Spartans[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC inclusion guidelines for cricket teams and wider WP:GNG. References appear to be routine coverage, with no in-depth sources establishing notability. From a cricketing context, this is a minor team in a minor regional league. There are several similar articles on teams in this league, which have the same deletion rationale.

Also nominated are:

Chepauk Super Gillies
Lyca Kovai Kings
Dindigul Dragons
IDream Tiruppur Tamizhans
Siechem Madurai Panthers
Ruby Trichy Warriors
Nellai Royal Kings StickyWicket (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and India. StickyWicket (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't see a reason really for deleting this articles. Obviously the teams exist (although they don't play in an official T20) league, but I don't see an issue with them being represented on Wikipedia with an article, although GNG coverage might be limited. The other option is to redirect them all to the league article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Tamil Nadu Premier League. The teams are not independently notable as the references in the pages do not appear to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 14:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Tamil Nadu Premier League. The teams in this league do not get enough coverage to warrant separate articles, and all the relevant information can be found or added to the page about the league. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Yadav (police officer)[edit]

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

Another accomplished civil servant who does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Can't find much news sources covering him. May not fulfill WP:GNG.Admantine123 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable Sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endrabcwizart (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Durris transmitting station. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balgownie transmitting station[edit]

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

A low power broadcasting relay/translator providing fill-in coverage for TV and a couple of local radio stations in part of Aberdeen. No sources cited, unable to find any independent coverage justifying the notability of this transmitter specifically. The article consists of just a list of frequencies used by the transmitter. This transmitting station just relays the signal from the far more major Durris transmitting station, suggest a redirect to that. Flip Format (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Durris transmitting station. The article itself is not notable, there are no sources on the article and couldn't find much coverage elsewhere on the internet. Lewcm (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shinnok[edit]

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

Minor MK character fails notability. Most of the sources at the reception are just awful. GlatorNator (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters, another unjustified spinout. (Or just restore what I assume was there before the split). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. This is a hard one since I restored and rewrote the article years ago and was getting ready to go back in there and clean it up. However, I've realized that nothing has really changed about him in subsequent series appearances since then, despite being the Big Bad in MKX. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As with the Baraka nomination, I do have to ask how much effort GlatorNator is putting into these "failed Google searches" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baraka_(Mortal_Kombat). Here's some other sources that were somehow unable to be found in OP's attempt, yet were found in seconds by me - https://www.giantbomb.com/shinnok/3005-405/, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/MortalKombatShinnokAndQuanChi, https://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters3/shinnok.html, https://altarofgaming.com/character/shinnok/, https://www.cbr.com/mortal-kombat-shinnok-good-lame-bad-guy/, https://www.warnerbros.co.uk/news/articles/2021/01/06/komplete-history-mortal-kombat-part-2, https://www.mksecrets.net/index.php?section=mkx&lang=eng&contentID=7929&title=Mortal-Kombat-X-Characters-Bios, https://primagames.com/tips/mortal-kombat-x-how-play-shinnok-combos-and-strategies, https://screenrant.com/mk11-aftermath-kronika-shinnok-mortal-kombat-time-powers/. The character obviously passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. KatoKungLee (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:USERG and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE as this is demonstrating a basic lack of knowledge about policies. It would not be so bad if you didn't continue to post unusable sources in discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ Have you gone through every single source I posted?KatoKungLee (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KatoKungLee, please stop bludgeoning these MK AfDs with barrages of external links that clearly do not meet VG notability requirements, and I'm more than familiar with the sources listed. Where to begin: The Giant Bomb page is nothing more than a glorified wiki. TV Tropes is entirely user-submitted content. Fighters' Generation is a fan-created character database. Altar of Gaming is a nonviable VG source. Gameplay guides and "about character X" by niche gaming sites do not establish notability. Warnerbros.co.uk is a primary source. MK Secrets...'nuff said. Lastly, since you mentioned it, I searched for sources for Baraka months ago under various additional keywords and came up empty. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To List of Mortal Kombat characters. No SIGCOV, lots of cruft. // Timothy :: talk 10:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters: Character is not independently notable to the point that a spinout is appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baraka (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

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

This article has been like this since I was new. I tried to find reliable sources about him or what you call "third party sources", but unable to. GlatorNator (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters due to lack of, you guessed it, viable third-party coverage. I was going to nominate this but you beat me to it. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I warned that this would be happening when the attempt on deleting Reptile's article failed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reptile_(Mortal_Kombat). The intent may not to be WP:GAME, but that's basically what's happening here as the article was written over several years and many of the people involved are no longer on the site to try and defend it. Here's some extra sources, though I truly believe the goal is just to get these articles deleted: https://dashfight.com/mk11/characters/baraka-471, https://altarofgaming.com/character/baraka/, https://www.giantbomb.com/baraka/3005-64/, https://www.fanbyte.com/games/guides/baraka-guide-mortal-kombat-11-character-strengths-weaknesses-fatalities/, https://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters/baraka.html, https://www.shacknews.com/article/109419/baraka-returns-for-mortal-kombat-11-character-roster and https://www.cbr.com/mortal-kombat-anatomy-baraka/. I'm also very interested to hear how the links I posted were unable to be found by GlatorNator in a Google Search, yet I could find them in seconds. Am I just that much better at Googling? KatoKungLee (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are in full knowledge of such sources already. They are just inadmissible for Wikipedia due to being user generated or content-farms that do not prove notability. You can't just take literally any page from the internet and use it as evidence for an AfD discussion regardless of provenance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ Have you gone through every single source I posted? Who is, "we"? You are not speaking as part of some group, but as an individual user, correct? KatoKungLee (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the other Wikipedians who have already put their opinion about the AfDs in question without raising an objection. I am obviously one person, but I have been on Wikipedia long enough to consider myself part of the wider community. You are throwing around many highly charged allegations, like the fact that people are somehow out to get these articles in particular, and this is not just a routine cleanup. Please do not make accusations without any sort of evidence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how frustrating it is to watch something that you've worked on come down like this, but Wikipedia isn't the only place where this information can live. It clearly doesn't meet our notability standards at Wikipedia, but websites like Fandom exist (there's a page on Baraka here [22]) where this kind of content would be more appropriate. Nomader (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To List of Mortal Kombat characters. Lots of cruft, no SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 10:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Non-notable, no SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. The sources cited by GlatorNator above are all user-submitted stats and article pages that do not meet WP:VG/RS standards. This is almost a redirect !vote instead because most of this should just be cut. Nomader (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters: So much cruft. lacks SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mica Gallery[edit]

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

An art gallery which seems to fail to meet the criteria of WP:NORG. The only source is an old business listing. My searches have come up with nothing better. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ , nothing found for the business. Scattered hits for things made of mica in galleries. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging you because I did find some, although the length and independence of what I found is borderline. CT55555(talk) 14:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (borderline) based on the sources presented by CT55555 ~~Delete~~ - an online WP:Before search revealed a few listings in databases, a statement by the owner of the gallery on why she started the gallery, and a review of an artist's work at the gallery (but notability is not inherited from the artists even if the artists they show are notable.) This is not enough to meet notability guidelines for WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. If significant coverage can be found, I'm willing to change my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added coverage. If it is signifiant or independent is open to debate, but giving you this ping in case it is enough to sway your vote. CT55555(talk) 14:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I added some more refs (and looking into it made me think WP would benefit from better coverage of Islamic art in the UK).Dsp13 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good find on the Tribune Express one, that has me almost convinced, but it is the only one that provides any significant coverage on the gallery in a reliable source. If we could get one or 2 more like that one then it would change my mind. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be quite notable to Islamic art in the UK which is poorly covered. At worst merge into the road article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notable islamic art in UK. Article can be updated further. Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of the keep !votes said, this topic is poorly covered. As is this art gallery, so it fails to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since new sources have been found and the article has been improved (by me) both other delete votes have switched to keep. Pinging you @Onel5969 in case these developments sway you. CT55555(talk) 17:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The gallery now has (I just edited it in) a clear claim of notability as the UK's first modern Islamic art gallery. A distinct lack of claim of notability was missing until I did that some minutes ago. Nonetheless, the question for us to answer is, does this pass WP:GNG (which is what WP:NORG calls for, as I see it). I have to vote weak because I consider the Guardian, the Express Tribune and the Islamic Arts pieces to scrape by GNG, but poorly due to the lack of independence as most of these sources (not the Guardian) rely on the gallery founder. The Guardian is independent, but the length of coverage is not great (but is enough, in my opinion). However, I also understand that any journalist writing about this small gallery is very likely to contact the gallery for a quote and that should not reduce the value of media coverage because they did so. CT55555(talk) 14:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with the new sources found, it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As others have said, there is just about enough now to justify an article. The gallery has been around since 2007, and the article itself has no history of promotional or COI editing, which is more than we can say for many such artciles on more prominent galleries. Edwardx (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As nominator I am now satisfied this does in fact now meet WP:GNG. I would close/withdraw nom if not for the outstanding delete stance. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New World vulture#Taxonomy and systematics. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cathartiformes by population[edit]

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

There is a grand total of seven extant New World Vulture species. I humbly suggest that we do not need a separate list article for their population sizes. If there is a perceived need for that information, add it as a column in the existing table in the family article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New_World_vulture#Taxonomy_and_systematics. Population numbers can be add there. Dream Focus 11:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete - as Elmidae said, the population numbers could easily be accommodated in the family article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nostalgia#Other aspects. As some interest has been expressed in a merge, history will be left intact if anyone would like to use it for that purpose. If a soft redirect to Wiktionary is preferable, that can be discussed separately as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nostophobia[edit]

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

Just a definition; we know the famous quote whose initials are WINAD, don't we?? Georgia guy (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Social science. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The corresponding thesis already exists on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nostophobia — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitYehor (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expand While seeming like a Wiktionary definition now, I think it could be expanded to be an actual in-depth article. Sorry if anybody disagrees with this. Have a good day. Tvshowoflife (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a stub but the topic is clearly notable after searching. small jars tc 20:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is an interesting one. The concept seems quite niche, with minimal consistent adoption in academic spaces. The most well-cited is this.^[2] I could be convinced that it could be expanded into a proper article, but it seems plausible that a merge to Nostalgia or Oikophobia would be better.Suriname0 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Tournament Calendar | PDC". www.pdc.tv. Retrieved 2023-03-11.
^ Tovey, Philip; Adams, Jon (2003-04-01). "Nostalgic and nostophobic referencing and the authentication of nurses' use of complementary therapies". Social Science & Medicine. 56 (7): 1469–1480. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00143-0. ISSN 0277-9536. The concept of nostophobia (Davis, 1979) is less frequently used. It is a potentially useful flip side to nostalgia: an assessment of the past as essentially negative, and of the future as an opportunity to rectify its limitations. Thus, following earlier writers, we see the concept as 'useful in analysing the way organisational members reverse the positive/negative temporal division and see the past as an era to be escaped from, and the new, more positive one, actively embraced' (Strangleman, 1999, p. 727–728).

Comment If not kept a redirect to Wiktionary could be good.★Trekker (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that we can't do Wiktionary redirects anymore. Can someone else comment on that? Suriname0 (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wiktionary doesn't accept transwikis from Wikipedia, but I am not aware of any restriction of soft redirects. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nostalgia#Other aspects. If further content is developed there it can always be split out again. BD2412 T 04:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Baker (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the page has no references, there is no sign of notability, and yet in my experience most Canadian ambassadors do prove to be notable, when someone takes the time to dig out the sources. On LibStar's user page we can see a strange obsession with getting biographies of ambassadors deleted, but I am not seeing any involvement with this page, such as a challenge to add citations, or any sign of efforts to improve the page, or any of the others. They are all just drive-by Afds and are not the best way to deal with under-referenced articles. Moonraker (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADHOM LibStar (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors shouldn't go on a spree of creating unreferenced stubs and never touching them again. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an unreferenced stub for 15 years. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mashrafe (book)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to fulfill WP:BOOKCRIT. –MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 07:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashrafe (book). Fails WP:GNG, WP:BOOKCRIT. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT as others have mentioned. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matgoda High School[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources present are either primary, or school/college databases. PROD was contested by article creator. A WP:BEFORE search didn't throw up anything helpful in English. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all I can find are the school's own website and things like Indiacom. Coverage is well short of WP:SIRS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my discussion with the creator (Talk:Matgoda High School#Notability).—Alalch E. 02:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage doesn’t satisfy WP:SIRS. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BYOA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There was a AfD discussion many years back but no apparent improvement to the page since then. There have been no refs on the page since 2007 and it is hard to find any mention of the title at all. More recently BYOA has been applied to a different (generally related) topic Bring your own application. At best the title needs clarifying, but I suspect term was never really widely used in a way that would be recognised by significant RS. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finding lots of mentions but feels like we might be in WP:DICDEF land. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Bring your own device~~, which is much more broader, up to date and sensible about this topic (if a device needs a separate wireless access card these days it is an incredible outlier). Nate • (chatter) 23:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an appropriate target. Per most of the sources I saw on this, BYOA means that the net connection is sold separate from the product accessed over the net. Many sources talked about AOL's change where you no longer needed an AOL internet connection to use the AOL web portal. So I don't think this has much to do with bring your own device. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 00:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh mannn, now I remember, that was a long time ago when BYOA was popular (when I first moved to a regular ISP but still kept my AOL hookup). I'm going to do more research and right now I'm neutral. Nate • (chatter) 00:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not soft eligible, some input would be nice
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTDIC. Additionally, a google search returned with mostly definitions. Furthermore, the article is unsourced. Lightoil (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is looking like WP:NOTDIC. Did a google search as well for 'BYOA' and it brought up much different topics. That as well as lack of sources, it doesn't seem very notable. Lewcm (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Iwataki[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Google search returns little of value TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Television. Skynxnex (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The externally-linked filmography shows him connected to several household-name films, but WP:ENT doesn't apply because he wasn't an "Actor, voice actor, comedian, [...]"; just a sound engineer, and part of a team of sound engineers (as opposed to solo) at that. If the WP:ENT policy were to change to include sound engineers, that would change my !vote.

Someone might instead argue that he meets WP:ENT criterion 2, "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment," but that's more of a judgement-call and I'm not convinced based on what I see in the sources. If anyone supports a keep on that basis, please connect the dots.

I'm also worried about the derogatory information in the article. There doesn't seem to be sufficient vital information about him or any photo of him in entertainment-related sources to rule out the possibility that someone else with the same name is on the offender registry. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TKP (TV program)[edit]

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

Fails notability. None of the references in the article address the subject or are promotional material, so there is no SIGCOV. References themselves are not IS RS for notability. BEFORE showed promotional material, database listings. // Timothy :: talk 00:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This program is such insignificant filler that I'm in awe that this was an actual show that aired seven years and attracted any attention. But I got the best afternoon laugh from its translated logline which should be preserved in some form;

Crime News, not always terrible! Various bloody incidents, murders and robberies, to violence and pornography are packaged in different styles, complete with messages to avoid crime. The Crime Scene Crime Program is present every Monday to Sunday at 11.00 WIB and presents 3 segments in which it explores a number of the latest criminal cases that occurred during the last 24 hours from all over Indonesia. All crime scene crime news is presented in a polite and family-friendly manner Never miss a crime scene if you still want to protect your family from crime!

Sure...family friendly crime show with pornography, you do you Indonesia television station. 😂 Nate • (chatter) 17:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another article by this editor who has recently created a spate of articles about non-notable subjects. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tajuk[edit]

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

Fails notability. None of the references in the article address the subject, or are promotional material, so there is no SIGCOV. References themselves are not IS RS for notability. BEFORE showed promotional material, database listings. // Timothy :: talk 00:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Indonesia. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another article by this editor who has recently created a spate of articles about non-notable subjects. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Tournament Calendar | PDC". www.pdc.tv. Retrieved 2023-03-11.

[2] Tovey, Philip; Adams, Jon (2003-04-01). "Nostalgic and nostophobic referencing and the authentication of nurses' use of complementary therapies". Social Science & Medicine. 56 (7): 1469–1480. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00143-0. ISSN 0277-9536. The concept of nostophobia (Davis, 1979) is less frequently used. It is a potentially useful flip side to nostalgia: an assessment of the past as essentially negative, and of the future as an opportunity to rectify its limitations. Thus, following earlier writers, we see the concept as 'useful in analysing the way organisational members reverse the positive/negative temporal division and see the past as an era to be escaped from, and the new, more positive one, actively embraced' (Strangleman, 1999, p. 727–728).

[1]

[2]

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Terpene

Geeetech[edit]

N25 Carrigtwohill-Cobh Interchange[edit]

Mercedes Homes[edit]

Constantinos Christou[edit]

Icon Loft[edit]

Youthful Spirit[edit]

Havocalist[edit]

Zakovat[edit]

SJJIF Worlds Gi & NoGi Tournament (NABJJ)[edit]

Subhodhayam[edit]

The mith[edit]

Flood Risk Reduction Program[edit]

2023 PDC Calendar[edit]

Jeff Wise[edit]

Hellenic Environmental Center[edit]

Brenda Bence[edit]

Audrey Puente[edit]

Solid Gold (pet food)[edit]

Seiya Da Costa Lay[edit]

Salem Spartans[edit]

Gaurav Yadav (police officer)[edit]

Balgownie transmitting station[edit]

Shinnok[edit]

Baraka (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

Mica Gallery[edit]

List of Cathartiformes by population[edit]

Nostophobia[edit]

Brian Baker (diplomat)[edit]

Mashrafe (book)[edit]

Matgoda High School[edit]

BYOA[edit]

Joel Iwataki[edit]

TKP (TV program)[edit]

Tajuk[edit]

Leave a Reply