Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

Guide to deletion

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Franchi

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

Has never made a professional appearance and fails WP:GNG criteria with a lack of significant coverage. I would merge this article into the existing draft. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9] sources in the article already. I can easily find many more sources online if that somehow isn't enough. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - I can help bring more coverage and check the sources, too. However, I agree that we should wait for the player to make his professional debut first. At this point, I think merging the two pages is the best option available, so we can all collaborate on the same draft and add everything we need. Oltrepier (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact the player has made his pro debut or not does not infer notability per se. He clearly passes WP:GNG (the subject has received plenty of non-trivial in-depth coverage at Italian national level at least), which is the only thing we should care about here. --Angelo (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per other users. --Kasper2006 (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a baffling nomination. I only checked the first three sources provided by Das osmnezz before it became abundantly clear this person has received enough coverage for GNG. There's no need to wait until the player makes his pro debut either, he very clearly meets our guidelines. Paul Vaurie, I would strongly suggest you look more closely at the sources in the article and consider withdrawing your !vote to delete. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, which is the only actual criteria for determining notability. The fact that he doesn't meet an old, depreciated version of WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant, and was never relevant if a person meets GNG like they clearly do here. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC due to significant coverage in multiple WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I accept to keep it as the nominator. Someone please close the discussion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saibini

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

Procedural nomination (per second paragraph here) for IP who requested that this article be nominated for deletion. I have no opinion on the merits of this discussion. House Blaster^talk 21:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Hinduism, and India. House Blaster^talk 21:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article is a real thing, as tangentially and non-notably mentioned here, but no extensive or notability-establishing sources were found in a cursory search. Present article seems to be entirely original research and cite sources do not afford any basis for article retention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Luigi Carbonari. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craftsman-Farmer Alliance

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

Page written in just three lines and with a single source (concerning the electoral results of the regional elections in Trentino-Alto Adige). In 1964 the list obtained 2.6% of the vote and one seat in the Province of Trento, except for this information and its poor result in 1968 we know practically nothing else about it. It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - had regional assembly representation, which should suffice considering the autonomy of the region. --Soman (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NORG makes it clear that just because a political party has held seats in parliament does not automatically confer notable (WP:ORGSIG). It does increase the chance that the party will meet WP:GNG, but at this point, the onus is on you to provide sourcing that shows this. Curbon7 (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively it is so, this list does not go beyond that electoral result and the election of a regional councilor...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that the party only existed because of the efforts of a former DC politician, Luigi Carbonari (politico), it might be that a redirect to him would be most appropriate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A political party which obtained one elect in a regional election and was represented for four years in a Regional Council deserves an article. The main topic should be the party, not the politician, but, if regrettably there is no consensus on keeping the article, I hope we can at least create an article on Luigi Carbonari (the party's leader, who was a member of the Italian Parliament before) and merge it into the new article. --Checco (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A party deserves an article if it respects WP:GNG and there is something to tell about it. On this party, excluding the electoral result, there is practically nothing to say. I agree with Goldsztajn's proposal, ie merge it with the party leader's page: in the next few days I will create an article about Luigi Carbonari. A redirect to a broader page in this case can be very useful, while a three-line article is not necessary. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article's been created already. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! ;) --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now, ideally with expanded references. Merging with the party leader's page should be a fall-back option.--Autospark (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Luigi Carbonari: After thinking about this one for a few days, there is just nothing here. This is a fairly minor party that existed for a short period of time, so it's no surprise that coverage is practically non-existent. Merging with Carbonari's article will still preserve the history of the party, but will do so in a better venue, so I think that is the best option in the current light. Curbon7 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a split decision I see a consensus to delete the article on Adeogun and a consensus to merge/redirect the article on The White Saviors. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olusola Adeogun

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

I see no indication of notability for Olusola Adeogun besides that he is the narrator of a podcast The White Saviors which doesn't itself look to be notable. Both articles claimed that Adeogun and the podcast had won a Digital Publishing Award but the DPA page doesn't mention either and links to a completely different piece. Other sources are marginal. For example, this link to a PDF file which simply lists someone of the same name (among hundreds of names), without confirmation of it uniquely belonging to this subject. On Talk:The White Saviors, there is a kerfuffle about source dates which resulted in the removal of most of the article's original text. Probably all of this should be deleted or moved as a minor mention in Canadaland. Hard thoughtful work (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is mentioned in the producer's biography as his only creative output: Hard thoughtful work (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Nigeria, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete this is all I found [10]. Nothing we can use. No other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]

There are two articles being discussed, but I think you only commented on the first one. I'm just mentioning that in case that was in error. CT55555 (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was only commenting on the article about Olusola, not the podcast, I might review that proposal later. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both (As the author of both)

Regarding Olusola Adeogun his only claim to notability is indeed his involvement in the podcast. However, I belive that does satisfy WP:CREATIVE criterion 3The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. He's the narrator of the entire series. I think that's a major role. And the podcast is the primary subject of multiple independent articles, as I'll demonstrate below as I explain why the podcast should be kept too. Even if that didn't compel you, the most drastic action woudl surely be a redirect to The White Saviors as per WP:ATD. Regarding the PDF link, he has an uncommon name and so unless you think there might be another media studies person in the same city with the same unusual name, it's a valid source for verifiability, once notability is established elsewhere.

The podcast did get an honourable mention at the awards, but it's not easy to spot as they worded it badly, and didn't mention Adeogun, despite that you can see it clearly here: https://digitalpublishingawards.ca/category/digital-publishing-awards/ (search for "WE Charity" in the text).

Regarding The White Saviors keep because it is a very notable podcast. As per the sources in the article, it was was described as one of the best Canadian podcasts of 2021 in The Globe and Mail and by CBC Radio. It is the subject of multiple reviews in media and also an academic source. That's a clear pass at WP:GNG based on the sources in the article. To make it easy for people, I'll give some examples here:

The White Saviors by Canadaland. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, [s. l.], v. 30, n. 4, p. 298, 2021. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=153335571&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 12 jul. 2022.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/article-the-five-best-canadian-podcasts-from-2021-were-binge-worthy-true/
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcastplaylist/the-best-podcasts-of-2021-1.6273183
https://torontosun.com/news/kielburgers-file-defamation-suit-against-canadaland
https://www.thesuburban.com/columnists/mike_cohen_cohen_chatter/noted-mcgill-grad-jesse-brown-s-canadaland-series-could-be-trudeau-s-worst-nightmare/article_c63b2f73-3550-5d2f-adfa-113e5e4986ea.html (slight independence issue with this one, as I think it's the magazine of the university that the podcast producer attended, so maybe not flawless, but the others are high standard) CT55555 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Publishing Awards page is dated January 26, 2021;[11] the podcast was released in August 2021.CorrTimes (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's accurate. I think the page has had a number of updated and the date of each follows. However, you could be correct that the award precedes the podcast and maybe that is why Olusola Adeogun is not mentioned, maybe it's an award for Canadaland's general coverage of the WE Charity. I must admit, I think I mixed up Canadaland's general reporting on the WE Charity with the podcast when I put these article together originally, I think errors from that are now fixed. I'm going to assume you are correct that the award is not about the podcast and is about general reporting. Which leaves me back where I was when I commented above: it's an impactful podcast, with the national broadcaster and the most popular newspaper in the country ranking it in their top 5 for 2021 and therefore people who played a major role in creating it are notable as per C3 of WP:CREATIVE. CT55555 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both for lack of independent notability or move to Canadaland. See both talk page discussions where the creator said that the reason Olusola Adeogun and The White Saviors were notable is because they prompted the resignation of Bill Morneau,[12] even though Morneau resigned a year before the podcast.CorrTimes (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The initial error has been fixed. I recommend people judge The White Saviors as per WP:GNG and Olusola Adeogun as per WP:CREATIVE and judge it simply based on the articles as it stands, corrected mistakes are not reasons to delete. CT55555 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or at least redirect both articles to Canadaland#The_White_Saviours. The coverage is simply not in depth enough to merit a separate article, but I think there is salvageable content here. For instance, The Globe and Mail source is reliable and contains more than WP:100WORDS about the podcast and the CBC article is at least reliable and explicitly focuses on the podcast for a paragraph. I don't see any reason for outright deletion of the pages. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Not enough coverage. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the podcast based on explanation above, delete for Adeogun the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think anyone has mentioned the Jacobin article titled "Canadaland: The Podcast Holding Power to Account". The article arguably spends a few paragraphs discussing the podcast and Jacobin is listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as this helps inform my judgment, as Adeogun is not at all mentioned in the Jacobin article, and the White Saviors is discussed only in context of the larger Canadaland topic. Here Under The Oaks (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Olusola Adeogun as simply not notable (as of yet) with only one brief podcast narration gig to his credit. Merge The White Saviors to Canadaland#The_White_Saviors (no "u" in Saviors in any sources I've seen), as it seems that sources discussing the podcast series predominantly level-up to Canadaland. Here Under The Oaks (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both articles to Canadaland per TipsyElephant.-KH-1 (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @CorrTimes and Jamiebuba: in an effort to come to a clearer WP:CONSENSUS I was wondering if either of you might consider changing your !vote to redirect or merge as an WP:ATD. Also, it looks like you !voted twice Oaktree b, would you be willing to strike out one of the two !votes for greater clarity? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, hopefully it's clearer now. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dshon Forbes

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as [13] and [14] are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nicaragua. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep international footballer and goalscorer in his local league, some coverage here 1, 2, 3.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Ortizesp:. Besides the sources Ortizesp found, I found 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, and 9 among many many other sources. Significant young figure in Nicaraguan football with an ongoing pro and international career who has played for two of the top 4 Nicaraguan teams (Real Estelí and Walter Ferretti) and helped the latter win their only ever Nicaraguan cup in 2021. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Youtube and facebook links? JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage cited above does not amount to a WP:GNG pass, being a collective of interviews, passing mentions and unreliable sources, none of which contribute to notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weakish) per Devonian's source analysis. I couldn't find much myself, either. The subject appears to have received some coverage, but not enough for notability. I did find [15], which I do believe counts towards the GNG. However, more sources need to be found for notability to be demonstrated. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 23:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 12:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. While the source from User:Danre98 is decent (the rest is not), GNG requires multiple significant sources. Being an international, professional or having an ongoing career is irrelevant in AfD. If somebody finds additional significant sources, I am more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source from Danre98 is indeed the best of the lot, but I don't think it has enough independent secondary commentary on him to count towards GNG. Among the non-quoted material, there's too much content that's just restating what he said rather than providing analysis. JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of multiple in-depth high quality sources with which to write an article. Fails GNG. Please don't waste people's time by putting forward Facebook and YouTube as sources, that's being disruptive. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think one source is not enough, thus it violates WP:GNG.--Tysska (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments above - sources around are not good enough to confer notability. --Angelo (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources lack the depth required for GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to PennWest California. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON with a COI editor even admitting that their website is under construction. However a valid AtD exists. The history remains under the merge if there's reliably sourced information someone wants to add to the university's article. Star Mississippi 01:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

California University Television

AfDs for this article:

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

College TV station. This was merged in 2018. The redirect has been replaced with this "new" article with "sources". Refs 1-3 are primary/self published (and one is Facebook). The rest are all just about alumni, and they may not even verify that these people were involved in this station while at PA West. Lacks in-depth independent coverage, does not meet WP:NORG. MB 20:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Schools, and Pennsylvania. MB 20:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back per MB Andre🚐 17:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are not reliable and there aren't many sources. Fails WP:GNG and per above, fails WP:NORG. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 ⋅𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔⋅ 21:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have overseen the television station since 2010 and can attest that all facts presented are true and correct. This station was founded by and is operated by The Student Association, Inc., which is a nonprofit affiliated with the university. CUTV staff are NOT university employees, and our operations are governed by our board of directors. We currently have a website under construction. Pdelverne (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Kuzin

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

Article was draftified but then contested by creator, hence AfD. Subject has made a small number of appearances in a semi-pro league. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC and would even have failed the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline.

Searches in Google News and DDG did not yield any independent significant coverage. The reason that this was draftified was because the subject is young so could potentially be notable in a few years but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball so we should only create the article after Kuzin becomes notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opt for deletion, but I believe that in the near future it will be successfully published. When it will have a richer coverage.--Tysska (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any online English or Russian language coverage that could be SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article does not show notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON Bruxton (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Bánský

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. Before search doesn't bring up any third party sources, rather only stat pages and passing mentions. Without a medal record, doesn't seem to come close to meeting WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Czech Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Guy climbed specific mountains" is WP:ROUTINE coverage, in addition to the independent coverage being not significantly about him. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cédric Rémy

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

Non-notable skier. Did a before search, and didn't come up with third party sources to establish any notability, only stat pages and a few passing mentions. No medal record. Doesn't seem to come close to meeting WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordi Bes Ginesta

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

Non-notable athlete. Did a before search, and didn't find any third party sources to establish notability, only a few passing mentions and stat pages. With no medal record, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 18:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project Nimbus

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

This is a contract between the Israeli government and various tech companies. A contract isn't inherently notable, and the citations only note the ensuing controversy (ie, there doesn't seem to be coverage of the program in and of itself...just that some object to it). I think this could be a paragraph in Israel Defense Forces or similar article that summarizes controversies about the parties involved. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If nothing else, this is a reasonable search term that could be made a redirect. I'm also uncomfortable with the quick action to try to delete coverage of such a controversial contract. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable. On your last point, I think it is mostly a WP:NOTNEWS issue; we don't have evidence of any lasting controversy. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Palestine, Computing, Military, and Technology. Relisting in four categories since they were not properly transcluded. Skynxnex (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An unprecedented project of this magnitude clearly passes WP:GNG. إيان (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first two paragraphs into Ministry of Economy (Israel), under the near-empty History section, and redirect. Nimbus is a contract and technology policy of THAT ministry and NOT of the Ministry of Science of Technology that exists alongside! The factual two first paragraphs are an improper WP:SPINOUT. The rest of the AfDd article contains opinions and non-Israeli corporate matters barely related to the subject. These last three paragraphs are covered by WP:NOTNEWS. gidonb (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe without the controversy it may not have been notable in and on itself, but now it clearly does. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The suggestion of nom that this may belong under the IDF is proof that this article is not suitable for keep. It is a LOGICAL conclusion if you read OUR article but, objectively, the two are not related. This is a national policy that affects all agencies in Israel which evoked a discussion about what the impacts might be for Israeli defense and intelligence, not especially targeted by the policy. There is no direct relationship but for how this discussion evolved (and everyone has a right to get worked up about what they choose of course). Hence the other conclusion of nom and their recommendation for a partial merger, be it to another article (that they explicitly keep open), makes more sense. The article, as is, is a political shit sandwich of unrelated matters. We have a national policy here, a hypothetical discussion on possible implications, and then reactions to these discussions and what these meant for the job security of people who expressed their personal opinions, corporate affairs, and the like. In short: the focus of this article keeps shifting and follows, after the initial writeup, nothing but a news cycle, creating a distorted perception of the subject. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, even the first two paragraphs were WP:POV. I streamlined these just a bit. The entire article was written from the perspective of sensationalism and conspiracy theories, style FOX New and the New York Post. We should not turn WP into a tabloid! gidonb (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there is indeed anything worth keeping, a prospect that gidonb brings into doubt. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cf. Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.121.14.122 (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sorry for doing this as anon, but I lost my wiki login data. What about the supposedly obtained training docs about Project Nimbus that had been obtained here https://theintercept.com/2022/07/24/google-israel-artificial-intelligence-project-nimbus/ ? I find it rather odd, that an article, that only exists for less than a week, with this kind of hot topic, is being marked for deletion this quickly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DD:1749:7E74:D1F7:B90E:1DDC:59F4 (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that posting in this AfD is your only activity, but to respond to your "with this kind of hot topic" remark, it seems this is only "hot" because of a very recent flare-up of specific criticism, and I argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

because I stumbled over this topic in a news article. Being curious, I wiki'd it. Seeing how fresh the wiki entry is and how fast it was marked for deletion, I came here to throw in my two cents. Wouldn't be the first time that an opposing party will do their thing to get an uncomfortable article removed. Also, of course you won't be able to to find any activities based on my IPv6. My ISP changes the #'s every three days. But I'm not new here. I personally met Jimmy (introduced by a mutual friend of his) some 15 years ago, when he visited DePauw University in Indiana, U.S. 2003:DD:1735:755D:84A1:2252:82E3:3E5 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP baselessly suggests that the nominator may handle from bad faith. The nominator suggested removal because the article does not meet objective WP standards. Nothing else! gidonb (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have enough RS to show that this is a notable subject. Bruxton (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's attracted lots of attention at this point; it's notable and not just "news." Freoh (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Benson

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

Cannot find sufficient sourcing to indicate that this person is a notable figure in radio/pirate radio. Anything that comes up on a Google search tends to be about his company with him mentioned trivially or not at all.

The books listed in "Further reading" cannot be verified to have SIGCOV of him. None are available in full text on GBooks, Internet Archive, or...elsewhere. I made a request at RSX about a week ago (Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Grant Benson) but no dice as these are rather obscure books and the author didn't bother to provide page numbers. MrLinkinPark did respond to say that the second book was searchable for him and Benson's name does not appear in it, which leads me to believe that the author was simply listing topically related books rather than trying to cite content about Benson. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Switzerland, and England. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete as a completely unsourced BLP. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There’s no support for the nominator's argument for deletion here. It is well explained that the two articles - Baishya Saha and Saha (surname) - are about different topics, one is a caste and the other is a surname used by this and other castes. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baishya Saha

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

A page already exists for the saha surname. The baishya prefix is unnecessary. The pages actually refer to the same surname of hindu indian origin Editrdec19 (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both are different 2405:204:810F:C950:0:0:314:F0AC (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Saha is a surname, used mostly by two castes- Baishya Saha and Shunri, which are now practically different castes. Both these castes have few other surnames too, like Podder, Sadhu, Sadhukhan, Mandal, Roychoudhury etc. Baishya prefix is necessary for the caste article as the community often identify themselves by the present article name; Scholars too use this name. So Baishy Saha(caste article) and Saha(surname article) aren't identical and deserve separate and independent presence on Wikipedia. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Saha (surname) is a surname as evident from the article name, whereas Baishya Saha is a caste. Saha may be used as a surname by other castes especially Shunris as rightly mentioned by CharlesWain above. Therefore, there's no reason why the article on Baishya Saha should be deleted! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Hinduism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Notable enough and is fine.

Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitru Frâncu

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up any third party sources to establish notability. No medal record, doesn't meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 15:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not meet the WP:GNG.--Tysska (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion about a re-scope/move/merge can continue editorially, if desired. It's clear that there isn't going to be a consensus to delete the material, therefore this does not require another relist, which I'm not sure would bring about further consensus anyway given the scope questions. Star Mississippi 01:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern New Jersey Council

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

This is entirely sourced to BSA promotional material. My own searching fails to find any sources that meet WP:SIRS. A small portion of this material (say, a list of the camps with 1-2 sentences about each) could be merged into Scouting in New Jersey with a redirect left behind. The vast majority is low-level trivia, as noted in January. Garden State Council in the parent article is a good example of what makes sense. Much of it ("By drawing on the strengths of each of these individual councils and merging them together, the Northern New Jersey Council has committed itself to offering the finest Scouting programs, increasing membership and providing strong, supportive leadership") is WP:G11 material.

I propose this with some sadness, having been a member of Troop 350 when I was a kid, and enjoyed many a camping trip to Alipine, NoBe, and Floodwood, where I earned my 50 miler award. But none of that means this meets WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Scouting and New Jersey. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @RoySmith: Do I understand that you are proposing to Redirect and merge the content of the page to Scouting in New Jersey? --evrik ^(talk) 15:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps AfD was the wrong forum, but yes, that's essentially what I'm proposing. But, not everything, not even half as you suggest below. The vast majority of this is trivia and needs to be dropped. This has been tagged for improvements of various kinds for years, so I don't have much optimism that anybody's going to come forth and find better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly, about half of what's here should be cut out. However, the remaining information is notable. I would suggest that someone take the time to thoroughly edit this work. I'm sure that we can find sources to substantiate most of what's here. Redirect this to Scouting in New Jersey. If someone want to take the time to bring it up to snuff, we can remove the redirect. --evrik ^(talk) 15:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and procedural close I think the proposer came to the wrong place. All the the discussion were about improvements needed in the article, not about valid reasons for deletion of the article. The topic would clearly meet GNG. BTW, I think "promotional" is too strong of a term......"self descriptive" would be a better one. I may try a few tweaks. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made some tweaksNorth8000 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am always amused when someone spends more time trying to get an article deleted than contributing to improve the work. --evrik ^(talk) 02:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the independent sources which support this meeting GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are now five:

Slocum, John W. (1963-04-25). "JERSEY ACQUIRES BOY SCOUTS' CAMP|Buys 300 Acres at Alpine for Public Park Under Green Acres Plan Tract West of 9W". New York Times.

Kalleser, Steven W. Jacek P. Siry; Pete Bettinger; Krista Merry; Donald L. Grebner; Kevin Boston; Chris Cieszewski (eds.). Camp No-Be-Bo-Sco. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Gormly, Kellie B. (2021-10-26). "The 1980 Slasher Movie 'Friday the 13th' Was Filmed at This Boy Scout Camp in New Jersey". Smithsonian Mag.

Zusman, Albert B. (Summer 1999). Boy Scout Camps along the Delaware River (PDF). Spanning the Gap. Vol. 21. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.

Kean, Thomas H. (1985). Remarks of Governor Thomas H. Kean, Hudson-Hamilton Council of Boy Scouts of America, Meadowlands, Friday, May 3, 1985.

--evrik ^(talk) 13:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are WP:SIGCOV of the subject

Slocum is coverage of a real estate sale 60 years ago by a predecessor entity, which doesn't say anything about the council beyond the terms of the land sale.
Kalleser is extensive coverage of the history of NoBeBoSco, but only makes passing mentions of the North Bergen Council as related to the camp.
Gormly covers the slasher movie made at NoBeBoSco, but again, just a passing mention of Northern New Jersey Council as the owner of the camp.
Zusman talks about Boy Scout camps in general, with a short section about NoBeBoSco as part of the list. I don't see anything that even mentions the council.
Kean is a political speech by the state governor. I can't find the full text, but from the abstract linked to on Google Books, it doesn't sound very significant to me. If you have a source for the full text, I'd be happy to look at it in more detail.

WP:GNG requires that coverage for organizationsContain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. These sources fall well short of that.

-- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know that those things you mentioned above refer to the camps, etc. which are all parts of the council? --evrik ^(talk) 20:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that. I also know that notability is not inherited. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED? Which passages apply here? --evrik ^(talk) 20:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are talking about the council. They are (mostly) talking about camps that the council owns. But, the key point is that there is no significant coverage of the council. WP:SIGCOV requires that the sourcesaddresses the topic directly and in detail. How do any of these sources address the Northern New Jersey Council directly and in detail? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The camps are the primary focus of the council. You can't separate one from the other. --evrik ^(talk) 21:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik I respectfully disagree. It could be possible to have an article about Camp No-Be-Bo-Sco (if it meets the notability requirements) with or without having an article about the council. GoingBatty (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: As you may remember, both Camp NoBeBoSco and Camp No-Be-Bos-Co have existed in the past, and were merged with this article. Yes, a camp article could exist without an article on the council. However, I am not advocating on articles about the camps. If you look below, there are at least four articles about the council, and then there are those tha cover the camp. --evrik ^(talk) 03:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found three sources that describes the council:

Heyboer, Kelly (2021-11-29). "2 N.J. Boy Scout councils selling camps to pay for sexual abuse settlements". NJ.com.
"Forest Green, Dollar Green". The Montclair Times. Montclair, New Jersey. 2001-05-24. p. A8.
Gregory, Howard (November 27, 1998). "4 Boy Scout Councils Will Consolidate". The Record. Hackensack, New Jersey. p. 111.

--evrik ^(talk) 21:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-name List of camps of the Northern New Jersey Council. As acknowledged, the information about the camps is well documented. Djflem (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone that follows these things, someone decided to take a whack at declaring that one of the sources is not valid: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_self-published_book_a_RS? --evrik ^(talk) 03:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evrik's comment about a source's reliability; I think that discussion has no bearing on deletion discussion outcomes, as being self-published has always disqualified a source from being able to help satisfy GNG. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO clearly meets GNG. There is one argument against that which is really unfounded. Which is saying to coverage about things which are a part of the council is not coverage of the council. By definition, the council consists of all of it's parts. Saying to exclude coverage of the things that it consists of is not correct. North8000 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please reassess after changes to the article after AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After three weeks, only the nominator supports deletion. Whether this should remain as a separate article or be merged elsewhere isn't a discussion for AfD. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Backtaxi

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

While the bit about how this relates to the Tenerife disaster may be of interest, by and large this article doesn't appear to satisfy WP:NOTDICTIONARY. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly not a WP:DICTDEF. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - actually: meh. I'd rather see this incorporated into an article on aviation, but I don't know enough to know where it fits. This is a documented procedure, but there are undoubtedly dozens or hundreds of others. yep, meh. Lamona (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It could go here? DonIago (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider a possible Merge ~~to Appendix:Glossary of aviation, aerospace, and aeronautics.~~ Turns out that this is a Wiktionary page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to World Athletics Half Marathon Championships with the history preserved under the redirect as there is no reason not to. Star Mississippi 01:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 World Athletics Half Marathon Championships

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

Only information is that event was cancelled, so will be a permanent stub article. Doesn't pass WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and China. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say merge to World Athletics Half Marathon Championships but all the information in the article is already there. GoldenRing (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Goldenring & nom. Waggers TALK 15:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect rather than delete. i do not have a specific preference regarding whether the article should be kept or not, but i think it would be better to convert it into a redirect rather than simply delete it. whenever similar annual events have been cancelled due to the pandemic and there was not already an article on that year's event, i have noticed that a common practice is to create a redirect to the main event article and include the redirect in the appropriate category of events cancelled due to the pandemic, as seen here.
although i think that, at this point, i am the editor who has contributed most to the prose that has remained, i am not particularly attached to the prose, and most of the information is already in the main event article anyway. (as an aside, i think this subject actually does pass wp:gng, but i do not think it passing wp:gng should be dispositive, as much of the discussion is about plans for an event that never happened.) however, at the time i updated the article to reflect the event's cancellation, i did not think that it would be appropriate for me to unilaterally delete the article or convert it into a redirect, as i believe there is precedent for keeping such stubs, as seen with 2020 Evian Championship, 2020 IHF Super Globe, and 2020 European Athletics Championships. (the history for the last one may be interesting, as it shows two attempts at converting it into a redirect that were reverted.)
i assume that, whatever the outcome of this discussion is, the same should probably similarly apply to other comparable stubs. would it be appropriate to convert this into a nomination for multiple articles? i admittedly do not spend much time at afd, so i am unfamiliar with the procedures here. also, the number of articles in the Sports events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic category seems daunting, and articles such as The Boat Race 2020, a featured article, should probably be weeded out of such a nomination. however, it would be nice to get some guidance regarding how to proceed with such stubs going forward. dying (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC) [note: hilariously, two of the stubs i listed above have since been turned into redirects, almost certainly due to my pointing them out. in any case, the existence of many other such stubs, at the time i edited the article currently under discussion, is why i had not unilaterally turned this article into a redirect, so the point still stands. also, the fact that they were converted into redirects rather than nominated for deletion supports my overall argument. dying (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)][reply]

Redirect is fine. As for the other articles listed, there are loads of redirects in that category, and the existence of other permanent stubs isn't a reason to keep this- it's a reason to get rid of them too, in my opinion. But there are so many cancelled sports events that everything cannot be looked at immediately. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- oh, i agree that "the existence of other permanent stubs isn't a reason to keep this", as per wp:ose. however, i disagree that "it's a reason to get rid of them too", also as per wp:ose. in addition, i do not think that everything needs to be looked at immediately, and i apologize if that appeared to be what i was proposing. however, i think there is merit in including perhaps one or two permanent stubs from each sport in an afd nomination of multiple articles to obtain a decent consensus regarding what action (if any) should be taken with such stubs going forward, so that no additional editor time is wasted with future cancellation updates if these stubs will end up being merged, redirected, or deleted anyway. i had been thinking of making such a nomination myself, but quickly realized that having my first afd nomination be a complex nomination of multiple articles does not seem like a good idea. dying (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider a redirect to World Athletics Half Marathon Championships.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World Athletics Half Marathon Championships. I think redirecting makes sense here. Simeon (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Athletics Half Marathon Championships (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect will allow for a selective merge and for the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slowdog

AfDs for this article:

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

paid for vanity spam sourced mostly to blackhat SEO and otherwise non-rs PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE WP:ARTSPAM (not the worst I've seen) with promotional content not adequately sourced to WP:RS to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or WP:NMUSIC.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:G5 as the creator has been banned for paid editing, and it does not have major contributions from other editors. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Banned after the creation of this masterpiece? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creator was, off course, blocked after creating this. I see no indication in the block log that they were the sock of someone blocked before this was created. So, not WP:G5 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the subject got a refund. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI vanity spam and lacks notability. Andre🚐 18:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steve Wood (footballer, born June 1963)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) PopoDameron (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:N or WP:SPORTCRIT. Only source is a database with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, which is specifically stated not to be sufficient for WP:SPORTCRIT. PopoDameron (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator after significant sources and content were added to the article (and good logic in the comments). PopoDameron (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Football. PopoDameron (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added content and references to the article. Perhaps more can be added later.--Eranrabl (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - let IAR/COMMONSENSE prevail. He has 19 goals and over 140 appearances in England's professional football league in the pre-internet age. Will there be additional significant sources out there? Yes. Giant Snowman 20:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per everything above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep withdrawn as stated above PopoDameron (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nemule Barlas

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

Also nominating

It is unclear whether these are the correct names for these descendant of Yesunte Möngke / ancestors of Saif al-din Hajji beg, as the names do not appear in any of the sources given by the page creator. In any case, we seem to know very little about these people, and so should not have standalone articles about them, as they clearly fail our notability criteria. Delete both unless there are significant changes to the sourcing situation. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some previous discussion (and more alleged sources that do not contain the names) at the creator talk page: User talk:Ajrun Amir'za-da. —Kusma (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hajji Barlas father Burlaki Barlas his father Nemule Barlas his father Yesunte Möngke Barlas his father Qarachar Barlas as primary sources was Timurid Iran politics, religion, amd culture book and name came from this wiki page and also sources from this wiki check out and read now

https://ca.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajji_Barles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalan Wikipedia is (like all user contributed content) not a reliable source. See WP:UGC. Even if the names check out, the two people in question fail WP:BIO, as all we know about them seems to be their sons and fathers. See WP:INVALIDBIO. —Kusma (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as completely unverifiable and thus probably a hoax (considering also that the sources provided have nothing even remotely similar in them). Fram (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s Isn’t any validation page so it wasn’t any fake history it’s frik lineages you first time know tgis name but i know before you references [[16]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That book doesn't contain the names "Nemule" or "Burlaki", so how is it supposed to be a reference for the two articles up for deletion? Fram (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Bryson Crichton-Stuart, 8th Marquess of Bute

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

British nobleman, fails WP:BIO and in particular WP:BASIC due to a lack of coverage. The subject does not pass WP:NPOL either, because he never sat in the House of Lords, since he inherited his title after 1999. The two sources in the article are insufficient to establish notability, since thepeerage.com is a Self-published peerage website, and the Rich List 2019 predominantly describes his father's wealth alone (since this was published before he inherited his titles in 2021, I am almost certain the list only covers the wealth of the 7th Marquess, not the 8th's; and I couldn't find him in post-2021 listings). Beyond passing mentions, BEFORE only turned up this piece from the Scottish Mail on Sunday, which seems to be part of the deprecated Daily Mail (the deprecation extends to Daily Mail publications in Scotland). All in all, we don't have enough to prove notability. Possible redirect target: Marquess of Bute. Pilaz (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Pilaz (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even speedy delete because there is not even a vague claim of notability here. Thparkth (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks to me that at the moment there is no claim for notability other than that he is the current Marquess of Bute which based on previous decisions would not be enough to justify a separate article. As the subject is covered at Marquess of Bute the a redirect to that might be an option. Dunarc (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Wylie (author)

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

Wrote one book and some technical manuals and self published childrens books. News hits and reviews don't show anything I could definitively link to this subject, and none of them refer to him as an author, or an attorney. Fails WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG FrederalBacon (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has received extensive significant coverage in newspapers like the The Boston Globe as a politician, attorney, and author: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. ––FormalDude talk 08:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on this particular individual's notability, but in such a case, the Boston Globe is considered to be a WP:LOCAL source. Curbon7 (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That essays states thatEvidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. ––FormalDude talk 03:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the Boston Globe covers something from Boston does not necessarily confer the same umfph as if it was the Boston Globe covering something from another area. My local newspaper has coverage of the two-bit city councilguy, and of the restaurant down the street; this does not indicate that these are significant. Same vein, no matter how large or national the newspaper is, they still cover local stories and things of local interest. Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but Wylie has been covered in non-local coverage across multiple newspapers, including for running for state senate. ––FormalDude talk 03:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last part of that wouldn't meet WP:POLITICIANS. I also don't know what exactly these articles are since they're behind a paywall. If they show SIGCOV, that's cool, but I couldn't find anything on this guy. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have access for free via the TWL, which you should be able to acquire as well. And that one source alone would not be enough to meet WP:POLITICIANS, but there are at least two other sources which cover him as a regional politician that I think would be enough to pass. ––FormalDude talk 03:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Massachusetts. ––FormalDude talk 21:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've significantly cleaned up the article and added sources for most all the content. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, I still don't necessarily see SIGCOV. Looks like most of the articles are local news/city council coverage. Even his guest article based around his book is on "Wicked Local Cambridge". While I find myself wanting to read his book after reading his guest article, I still don't think he meets GNG. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but I doubt your ability to accurately assess GNG when you don't have access to a majority of the sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe "sigcov" means that the subject must be directly talked about in a source, not just being mentioned as an event participant or other incidental appearance. It does not have anything to do with which regions is the subject known in. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scale of one to ten

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

This page is literally just a dictionary definition. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to pain scale, the most plausible use of this term. Nate • (chatter) 22:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a mere definition. I don't think the redirect is a good idea given that the use of the phrase is far more common than just that situation. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wikipedia isn't for simple phrases. No evidence of useful encyclopaedic content here, or the potential for this. --LukeSurl^t c 13:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protégé Sports

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

Unhidden ADVERT, COI and not any GNG. Dark Juliorik (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The company website is dead and searching finds no independent coverage. MB 17:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft redirect to Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. Star Mississippi 01:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Gujri Institute of Nursing

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

WP:MILL institute, fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Delete or redirect to Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. Muhandes (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, Medicine, and India. Muhandes (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent institution. No evidence of sufficient notability to warrant a separate article.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford–Cambridge rivalry

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

This article is currently a complete mess, mainly consisting of original research about similarities and differences between Oxford and Cambridge. Of the sources cited, AFAICT, only this one from the Oxford maths department discusses rivalry at all. My own searches turned up only this from BBC Travel/Lonely Planet and this in the NYT. The BBC article is really about differences between them rather than going into any detail about the rivalry. The NYT article is just a general update on ongoings at both universities at the time. Unless there are other sources out there, I don't think that this merits it's own article, and if there is any salvagable content, it can be moved to Oxbridge. SmartSE (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article leading with similarities and differences is clunky and unnecessarily sectioned, but the claims made in 'Undergraduate admissions criteria', 'Direct competition between the two universities', and 'University rankings' are well-sourced and relevant. Propose copy edit tag and removal/restructuring of sections 1-3 Epsilon.Prota (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. SmartSE (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rescope the article into direct antagonism between the universities (such as sports and stuff). At least, all sources cited should at least be directly about the relationship between the two universities, so that we don't have synthesis in the article. At present, there is an atrocious amount of synthesis and other original research here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article is a clear candidate for WP:TNT (blow up and start over). One way to fix would be to narrow the topic. Most of the current content belongs in Oxford–Cambridge academic rivalry which you could keep separate from sports and other rivalries. See also: Harvard–Yale football rivalry, Harvard–Yale hockey rivalry, Harvard–Yale Regatta. Delete all unsourced content and rework only using sources that directly address the historic rivalry, per PP, to avoid OR. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiveon

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

Crypto spam company with crypto-only media references. Delete per NCORP, GNG Dark Juliorik (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are user-generated or is a passing mention. Others are obscure crypto-focused news sites with questionable quality.

Roostery123 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Roostery124 after searching as well. Skynxnex (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arianna Simpson

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

Blatant advertisement; WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG are not met by the provided and googled sources. Perhaps, WP:TOOSOON Dark Juliorik (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More crypto stuff. Non-notable, sources are largely funding announcements or PR stuff, I can't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources are overwhelmingly media appearances, puff pieces, and interviews. The article does not rise above a glorified resume. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladas Knašius Basketball School

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

Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH as well as the general WP:SIGCOV. The current ref are about several alumi and are not significant but nothing to indicate why the school is notable. No real WP:SECONDARY sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Basketball, and Lithuania. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it is exactly as the nom describes. Atsme 💬 📧 01:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom and Atsme. The current refs for article aren't SIGCOV and fail to meet WP:NCORP. VickKiang (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete As discussed before this page has a various articles from various news sites about the academy and it’s achievments. It is also a semi-professional basketball team which plays in Third Lithuanian basketball division. In my opinion sources do meet requirments for notability, if not are you able to provide examples of what is acceptable source for a sports team/academy. Not all sources discuss only alumni of the academy, Source [4] discusses season achievments of the academy along all age groups, Source [10] discusses accolades in Jr. NBA Lithuania, which is franchise of notable basketball organisation, as well as Source [11] discusses Champions at International level. Paulmafija (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2022 (BST)

None of the references are about the school itself, its all other stuff. scope_creep^Talk 13:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thats not true, e.g solely speaks about school it’s history and school itself. Schools achievments in other articles are about school and not individual alumni on other articles like this one . But I do agree that majority of sources do speak about existing alumni competing at international level, but that just adds on to notability of the school, I agree that it is not necessarily acceptable source. But some are. Paulmafija (talk) 9:40, 9 September 2022 (BST)

References

That first reference looks and reads like a press-release and the 2nd one is about the under-16 team. Again a passing-mention. I'm not filled with confidence that there is any significant, independent and reliable WP:SECONDARY coverage for this. Certainly there is a lot of passing mentions but that is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have included two more references both from major newsites in Lithuania . In my understanding even first reference provided on this talk is sufficient. I may be wrong but I believe the school/academy/team is worth beeing on wikipedia. Maybe under other category or as BC Neptūnas sub-page as the school is part of three tier basketball pyramid in Klaipėda.

Paulmafija (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2022 (BST)

References

The first reference there is an interview with the director:For ten years, every day, we emphasize that quality is important to us, not quantity," says Stasys Kaupys, director of the V. Knašius Basketball School. - We have to cultivate talents that would help the Lithuanian national teams. Sometimes not a single very talented child grows up in ten years, but sometimes dozens of them grow up. Here everything is determined by the constellations. So that WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS as it not secondary coverage. The 2nd reference is a press-release and is non-rs, fails WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Again, not a single one of these is a secondary that is reliable, independent and significant that is explicitly about the school itself. No real coverage of why the school is important enough to be notable. scope_creep^Talk 20:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORPDEPTH and broad geographic coverage. Checking these citations was a bit tough as they are in Lithuanian and had to be run through machine translation. Four ve-lt citations write about players successes and only mention in passing the basketball school. Same with the two delfi.lt citations. These appear to be local sources which are reporting youth sports. mkl.lt might not be an accurate link as it has no mention of the school. krepsinis.net is about the opening of a new arena. While I didn't review them all I'm not seeing where the school is getting broad independent coverage. The comments above seem to pleed, "Please don't take this article away because their students are doing so well." While that may be true their success has not yet translated into independent coverage for the school itself.Blue Riband► 14:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bryyn

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Following the recent AfD of Bryyn's former band Ophur, I've been checking out his own article, and he doesn't seem notable either. Almost all his music throughout his career has been made freely available, all independently or on non-notable record labels – the four bluelinked albums in his discography section all link to completely unrelated topics, so he has no notable albums. The references are almost entirely from the various record labels he has recorded for, apart from one obituary for his former bandmate in a local newspaper and a review from a non-notable website, a blog for a free music download app. The article was written by a near-SPA editor... the only other edits this editor has made are about neuroscience, and given that Bryyn (aka Bryn Martin) works full-time as a neuroscientist, this strongly suggests an autobiography... this would explain how the article creator knows Bryyn's birth date, who his influences are, and that he used to borrow CDs from public libraries as a child. Even with the unusual name and the fact he has been recording during the internet era, I cannot find any reliable sources about this artist. Richard3120 (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator did some nice detective work here. Bryyn has self-released a lot of music on the usual self-upload sources, and has promoted himself in the usual social media services, but nobody else has noticed his work. The article's reliance on red links and mis-directed blue links (some of which I have removed) indicates an attempt to puff up the article with connections to other people/things that are also non-notable. He's a longtime collaborator and studio hand who apparently loves to make music outside of his day job, and that's cool but to get an article here he needs notice from reliable media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two previous comments cover it all pretty well. None of these sources are RS. A check of his website indicates he is pretty small-time, which explains the lack of RS coverage. Most likely a promotional article by the subject himself. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Valid ATD that preserves the work. If she doesn't win in November, it can be revisited or G13ed Star Mississippi 02:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Gillen

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

Fails WP:NPOL. scope_creep^Talk 14:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like she handles the books/funding for the town, non-notable position. Rest of the stuff given isn't GNG. Towns issue bonds. Routine stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Does not appear to be notable at the moment, but is very likely to be in Congress, so draftification is a valid WP:ATD for the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify per Curbon7. Move to mainspace when/if she is elected to Congress in November. Sal2100 (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as valid WP:ATD, pending election. Djflem (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in future elections they have not yet won; the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But town supervisor is a local office, not an inherently notable one the way the House of Representatives is, so being a town supervisor is not the kind of "preexisting notability for other reasons" claim that would exempt a candidate from having to win the seat first, and this article claims absolutely nothing that would make her markedly more significant than the norm. Obviously the article can be recreated in November if she wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for her to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON Bruxton (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Muirden

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

just another typical holocaust denier. sources given in the article are just passing mentions. unable to find sources that aren't passing mentions in a quick WP:BEFORE. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 12:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Australia. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 12:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lacey

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

I am the subject of the article and I am wishing to lead a more private life, I do not believe I am a person of public interest. I removed online articles via other sites. I have even spoke to the person who created the page who tried to delete this previously but was blocked, I am now reaching out personally to try and resolve this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamL88 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claim to notability seems to be that he performed with notable people; topics are not notable by association. The sources don't seem to have significant coverage of him. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep some sourcing is about him, but just barely. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON-- perhaps an article could be pieced together on the Forever Tenors in the future, but currently it looks like notability by association as noted above. Gilded Snail (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One reference link is dead & goes to a 404 page, others the Internet Archive. Questionable whether passes the notability requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:SINGER to qualify for an article at this time. He appears to be leaving the field so additional references are unlikely. 5Q5|^✉ 11:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uplift (Ireland)

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

Previously PRODed, but dePRODed by creator. Not notable. Barring the website of the subject, singular source with a two-sentence mention, which does not confer notability per WP:ORGDEPTH, and none of the sources discussed on talk page have shown any level of sigcov. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While my own WP:BEFORE is ongoing, my initial searches are not looking promising. While the subject is mentioned in several news articles ([22],[23],etc), none would seem to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. I say this because I'm having a hard time finding even ONE reliable independent source to confirm what the subject actually IS. Is it a website that publishes petitions (outwardly that's what I see)? A membership org (if so how)? WP:ORGDEPTH requires "Deep or significant coverage [that] provides an overview, description [..] or evaluation of the [..] organization. Such coverage [..] makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub". That I cannot find even ONE news or academic source providing an overview/description/evaluation of the subject is telling. From own evaluation I can see that the subject is registered as a limited company with the CRO. Is *not* registered as a charity. Is *not* Register of Third Parties with SIPO and is not in the list of third parties who submitted returns. Is however seemingly included in the SIPO Register of Lobbying. Beyond that, and in all honesty, the subject seems to be a website (funded by donations) that allows pretty much anyone to publish a petition. Of which there are thousands and thousands. Sometimes covering relatively local/niche topics. Which are then converted into an email or a tweet or similar approach to a local or national politician. That I had to go "hunting" for this information suggests to me that WP:CORPDEPTH is not met. Certainly, in my own WP:BEFORE, I haven't found anything substantive to expand the current small stub into a slightly less-small stub. (Note, the "350,000 members" number seems to be "people who have created a profile/voted on the website". And, while website users/visitors isn't a factor in WP:WEBCRIT, this "claim to fame" seems weak at best...) Guliolopez (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as initial PRODder. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG. From what I have found so far, the mentions appear to be mostly passing and some are just links to petitions hosted on the uplift site. It's possible that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and later on they will receive enough coverage, but the subject currently does not merit an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Following my earlier comment above, I have since completed my own WP:BEFORE. Or, at least, have spent as much time on it as I'm going to. In short, and while I acknowledge that the relatively generic name of the subject (not exactly lending itself to a clear and unambiguous results in news/book/academic sources) means that I may be overlooking something, I am not finding significant coverage of the subject. No national news articles (in the Irish Times, Irish Examiner, Irish Independent or RTÉ) in which the subject is the primary topic. No independent sources at all that provide "significant coverage [that] provides an overview, description [..] or evaluation of the [..] organization". All I'm left with therefore is my own interpretation of fragmented coverage and passing mentions. That the subject is a company that coordinates a web-based community, to run surveys and petitions, and surface the outputs to politicians. While there's nothing wrong with that, there is nothing to indicate that the company meets WP:NORG, that the website meets WP:NWEB or that the activities meet WP:SIGCOV. Guliolopez (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darya Pinakhina

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

Looking at Scopus seems like much WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. Don't see how would meet WP:GNG. (Noted there seems to be another person with the same name at IMTO University who only recently did a masters: https://ctlab.itmo.ru/bioinf-master/theses.) Kj cheetham (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham: no oppose for deletion. When creating an article I thought that describing a taxon for the world means "automatically notable", but I was wrong. Unlike that this person has WP:SIGCOV Estopedist1 (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Finehouse

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

BLP with no references Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Russia. Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sourcing and promotional tone. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very promotional and unsourced. I get many hits in something called The Strad, but nothing that can support GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The 'article' as it now appears is non-encyclopedic and rather promotional. On the other hand, @Pasquale, who started the stub article and made some other contributions, seemed to find the subject worthy of note. Unhappily, the users @Kostyafinehouse and ConstFine (who have not shown any interest of other articles) essentially removed what little of encyclopedian interest there was, and replaced it with conventional promotion material.
If Pasquale (or someone else) has the wish and finds the time for restoring a more encyclopedian article, and also could add some reliable (non-blog) sources for the interest the artist is said to have evoked, then I think the article could be kept. Otherwise, it should be deleted. (If it be kept, I think that the other two (or one) mentioned editors should be admonished that they are destroying the article by replacing biographical data with sales promotion.) JoergenB (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of countries by forest area. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by forest area (percentage)

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

List of countries by forest area is more up to date Chidgk1 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of countries by forest area because they are providing the same info but in different format. Having two entire pages seems unnecessary.

Roostery123 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The percentages are relevant and shouldn't be deleted; a sortable table can accomodate both. Reywas92^Talk 16:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a map showing the approximate shares to List of countries by forest area. The map is more up to date than this article Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of countries by forest area. >>> Extorc.talk 19:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator It would be great if someone merges or deletes, I added a map of forest share to List of countries by forest area, but I am not likely to spend any more time on these articles as I spent enough time on my previous unsuccessful merge attempt. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate info from List of countries by forest area and completely unnecessary. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete List of countries by forest area does not include percentages, so this is in no sense a duplicate and deleting would remove the information. No objection to a merge. Hut 8.5 12:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of countries by forest area; this data is best presented in a column in a table on the main article. Hog Farm _Talk 13:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per the rationales below and subsequent contributions to the article. Thanks y'all, (non-admin closure) Gilded Snail (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Orton

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

Looking through Google, subject may fail WP:GNG. Regarding WP:NACADEMIC, Orton is listed as a professor emeritus on the Amazon pages for his books, but University of Leeds documents list him as a 'lecturer'. Discussion/further sources welcome. Thanks, Gilded Snail (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Visual arts, and United Kingdom. Gilded Snail (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His co-authors are distinguished, and there will be plenty of reviews, probably not on google - did you try JSTOR? User:Drmies started this in 2014. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you, Johnbod. Yes, Google is not the place to search for scholars. If the nominator had tried Google Books, they'd have found tons of hits, and JSTOR, indeed, has more than enough. I added a book, a link to a journal article in which that book is discussed, another reference for his Marxism, a reference to his importance in the reception of another art critic. I can't make the article much better right now, unfortunately. BTW Johnbod, I met the man once, way back when, at a conference--truly a fascinating academic. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of published book reviews for WP:AUTHOR. I added the ones I could find to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aashiqui 3

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

Fails WP:NFILM, does not have categories, claims to be in development but does not mention if the film has been shot yet. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM None of the existing sources support that principle photography has started. A different source found via searching [24] that's recently dated says it's in the very early stages. Ravensfire (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Does not meet NFF for unreleased films. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calin Ile

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

No particular evidence of notability, essentially a man who’s had a career. The French award he received has been held by hundreds of thousands of people, while being named hotelier of the year is of marginal relevance absent other distinguishing factors.

The coverage leaves much to be desired: it’s mostly the subject pontificating about himself or his industry; unsurprising, as he’s also in public relations. This, from a dubious source no less, calls him “super trained, experienced, dedicated and devoted”, which tells you all you need to know about its objectivity. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to judge as the sources are all non-English-language. I've asked WP:WikiProject Romania for help. GoldenRing (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sounds puffy as an article, but I can't understand or judge the quality of the sources to be much help. Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NBASIC and WP:ANYBIO:

The subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources like Ziarul Financiar, Forbes Romania, Romania Insider, economedia, Business Review and others. I didn't cite WOWbiz because it's an interview but it does show the subject is well known to the Romanian media.
The award Order of Agricultural Merit he received is notable anyway, regardless of how many people have gained it since 1883. Also being "hotelier of the year" is a distinguished achievement, just like being "actor of the year" would be in an actor's career.
The source mentioned in the nomination is mainly used for some basic info like DOB, place of birth and education etc, his notability doesn't rely on it. Picking up just one source out of 16 doesn't help the cause. Insight 3 (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - First, let’s point out that this vote comes from the article creator, an individual who has previously fought to keep articles he’s created, only to see them deleted.
  - Next: yes, the Order of Agricultural Merit is a notable award, but not all its hundreds of thousands of recipients are automatically notable. I hope we can make that distinction. And no, being named “hotelier of the year” is not necessarily a sign of notability, unless accompanied by coverage outside the industry echo chamber.
  - Finally, the sources mentioned really do nothing to bolster a notability claim. Ziarul Financiar simply quotes the subject, that’s it. The others deal with professional moves he is making: leaving a management job, being appointed manager of a new hotel (2) and entering a business partnership with some guy. All of this is routine coverage of a random person’s career, of the type that fills similar publications every day of the week. It’s essentially PR about someone who happens to be an expert at PR. None of it is remotely encyclopedic in character, as defined by WP:BASIC: “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I waited for two weeks for others to participate here, when no one came, I used my right to defend the article that I created and which I believe deserves to stay. We create articles and sometimes they get deleted too, what's the point here? BTW, I didn't create the second one you mentioned!
    It is self-contradictory to say a notable award is given to an individual without any merit that can make them distinguished from other ordinary non-notable people. The "hotelier of the year" honor is reported by two independent magazines ([25] & [26]) which are quite outside the "industry echo chamber".
    This is exactly how media covers active careers of living people, if they are not notable who cares what job they are leaving and with whom they are making partnerships. The real things to judge are 1) the coverage is significant (i.e. the sources are mainly about the subject, not just passing mentions), 2) the sources are independent of the subject (even you don't deny that), 3) they are multiple (more than one, simple math), and are reliable (aren't they?) Insight 3 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Let’s try this again. Here is the list of the agriculture award recipients — for just this year. 62 pages long, hundreds of individuals. Approximately zero of them are notable by our standards. If any of them are notable, it’s not solely on the basis of the award.
- Regarding your hotelier award sources: the first includes phrases such as “Ile really is a person with whom you can chat for hours on end”, “Ile truly is the professional missing from management teams”, “in a single word, he defines himself as a FRIEND”. Objective journalism, indeed. The second source calls itself “the magazine of the Romanian hospitality industry”, so is quite literally the mouthpiece of the industry echo chamber.
- It took me about five minutes to discover another Romanian CEO, along with five reasonably independent sources about her: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Does this imply Mihaela Bîtu deserves an article here? Not really: it’s the type of routine coverage the business press awards to any CEO. Same with this Ile fellow. — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's really hard to look for everyone's notability in the list. To write a Wiki biography, we need more info than just being in a list of recipients (and this is not the case for Calin Ile). But I am sure, if a wiki page is set for any of them, the award will be mentioned as a sign of notability on it.
  - For 'Hotelier of the Year', sources exist outside the hospitality industry as well:
  Bihon
  B365
  Its just a matter of finding more sources with deep online search.
  - The person you mentioned may or may not be notable, but if I say yes she is, you will bring another name and so on. Like "other stuff exists", "other people exist" is also not very helpful argument. Moreover, Calin Ile is not just a GM appointed here and there, as per sources, he is the president of the Romanian Hospitality Industry Federation (FIHR) and the the spokesperson for the Alliance for Tourism (APT). So, no comparison with your example. Insight 3 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ran a couple of references through a translator and they are mainly Calin's comments the hospitality/tourism sector and his company's strategy for getting through the pandemic. Not seeing anything that deals specifically with the subject in any depth. The two awards might get him across the line but it's hard to say.-KH-1 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, you haven't gone through all the references, the references cited in the lead section are just additional. The subject has pretty significant coverage here: [32], [33], [34]. He is also covered in the Forbes Romania.
Importantly, one should not expect a hotelier to have the kind of media coverage that actors, sports people, or politicians usually get. Insight 3 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- Some excerpts from three articles cited by Insight, which sound like significant coverage directly about his life to me:
  - Bihon.ro: "Călin Ile is general manager at Hote Ibis and teacher at ASE. Călin Ile attended specialization courses in the field of tourism in Denmark, Holland and France, executive manager with excellent results at Hotel Continental in Bucharest at only 27 years old, where he learns and perfects his managerial activity and acquires the experience and competence to be entrusted with the opening the first Ibis Hotel in Romania, in Bucharest."
  - Coltisor: "In a few words, Călin Ile's CV includes several milestones: born in Bucharest 40 or so years ago, graduated in 1995 from the Faculty of Tourism within ASE Bucharest, later with specialization courses in the field of tourism in Denmark, Holland and France..."
  - Infotravel Romania: "An ASE graduate, Călin Ile has been part of the Ibis team since the hotel chain arrived in Romania in 2001. He contributed to the opening of the first Ibis hotel in Bucharest, and then to the development of the network to 4 hotels today. He also holds the position of vice-president of the Romanian Hotel Industry Federation since May 2011."
- — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another excerpt from another mentioned source.
- Insociety.ro interview article's non-interview intro: "Călin does not regret for a moment the choice to be a hotelier, an idea that was imprinted in his mind when he was 18 years old, after, together with a classmate, organize coming-of-age parties or even New Year's Eve parties. However, it was not his only option, since, as he himself confesses, he also flirted with the idea of becoming a banker – being an analytical person, with some inclination towards numbers and statistics, or a teacher, as a continuation of his mother's work sale, math teacher all her life. Personally, the biggest challenge was when he left his hometown, Marghita (Bihor county), and came alone to Bucharest, scared, perhaps, of everything that was going to happen to him. He was only 18 years old, but he managed. Professional, the opportunity to be the director of the Continental Hotel in Bucharest, an emblematic hotel on Calea Victoriei, at only 25 years old, was, without a doubt, the biggest challenge."
- This is clearly biographical information directly about Calin himself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It’s also blatantly promotional, which sort of blunts its value as a quotable source. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. While I agree the article is blatently promotional and reads like a puffed professional resume, the Médaille d'honneur agricole is a state award in France and recipients of state awards would generally pass the WP:GNG threshold. Keep but rewrite to tone down the overly promotional tone. The article creator should note that there is no ownership of articles. Any editor can edit at any time, including a re-write for a neutral POV and the addition of any criticism that may be published in reliable sources. Blue Riband► 14:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuil Grinshpun

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

No real indication of notability or significant coverage, just passing mentions. It’s worth noting that the article creator has almost no other edits; given the subject’s wealth, hm. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Moldova. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment searching this person's name in Google at the news section gives 12 articles, most recent, which can be used as sources. Super Ψ Dro 09:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going through the refs used within the article, as well as sources available about them online, they pass WP:GNG - multiple in-depth articles in reliable publications that are independent of the subject. Angiewalter37 (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful if you provided an example. Please show us at least one source that you believe strengthens a claim to passing WP:ANYBIO. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources are found. I went through the sources in the article and there are none that are significantly about him - they are all name-checks, and cannot even be used to support his educational info. A search online turns up at least a dozen sites with bios of him, and they all begin "Emmanuil Grinshpun is a highly regarded philanthropist and world-renowned entrepreneur ..." which leads me to believe that 1) there is only one bio and 2) it is a PR piece. Clearly a person contributing to his community, but lacking the reliable, significant sources required for Wikipedia. Lamona (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO. Non-notable individual who has a lot of money and is well connected. Subject lacks significant coverage. I can't find anything more reliable that the PR pieces used. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I would remind editors, "It will be notable" has been identified by the community as a bad argument -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vectare

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

Fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage in reliable sources, just passing mentions of service changes in local press. Won a trade award in 2018, but award's notability looks weak. Draftified, then declined twice at draft, then moved to Vectare (bus operator) anyway, by a new account that certainly seems to have hit the ground running on bus company templates and articles. Storchy (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and England. Storchy (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some references. I feel that Route One and Coach and Bus Week are reliable publications. NemesisAT (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For scrutiny of the newly added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the trade magazines cited are independent, reliable sources and they contain significant coverage of the subject. Waggers TALK 09:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability, generally a minimum of two sources of deep or significant coverage. WP:CORPDEPTH - in-depth information *on the company* WP:ORGIND - "Independent Content" which in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Leaving aside the primary sources, we're left with 8 others as follows:
- This from Route One is a brief mention (2 sentences) of the company because the founder (who was 19 at the time in 2016) describes his business objectives. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
- This next from Route One is largely an interview with some Vectare execs who describe the software that they're developing to make school bus coordination easier. All of the information is provided by the execs (fails ORGIND) and hardly anything about the topic company (fails CORPDEPTH)
- The UK Bus Awards in 2018 held a New Horizons Award and awarded the Gold Medal to the topic company for the software they've developed. The award is non-notable for the purposes of establishing notability. Fails CORPDEPTH
- This from Essex Highways and Essex County Council shows a map of two bus routes and says that the topic company is now operating these routes on behalf of Essex County Council. No in-depth info, fails CORPDEPTH. Arguably this is also an announcement by an affiliated partner, fails ORGIND
- This from Coach & Bus Week is a short summary of the above announcement from Essex Highways with a quote from a councillor. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
- This from ArrivaBus is a service the topic company replaced, doesn't mention the topic company, not really relevant for notability purposes. Fails CORPDEPTH
- This in Leicestershire Live is a good piece on the new on-demand service operated by the topic company but it doesn't provide any "Independent Content" not in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
- This from bustimes.org appears to be a website run by an enthusiast but the "unofficial" disclaimer lends itself to being rejected as a reliable source.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. NemesisAT provides a reasoning of adding "reliable publications" - this is pretty much a given *before* examining the content of each source to see if it meets NCORP. Waggers says the references from trade magazines are "independent, reliable sources" that "contain significant coverage of the subject" - I disagree. Especially using the NCORP definition of independent to include "Independent Content". In addition, none of the articles are in-depth about the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺20:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I largely agree with HighKing's NCORP analysis, so I don't think I need to walk through the references individually: suffice it to say that they lack independent content, don't discuss the company in sufficient depth, or both. There are a few other sources that haven't yet been mentioned (e.g. [35]), but they suffer from the same shortfalls. Another point is that WP:AUD doesn't seem to be satisfied: the only available sources appear to be "media of limited interest and circulation" (e.g. trade journals, which are also explicitly called out as problematic at WP:ORGIND) or "local media", and AUD says we need more than that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delte. Lacks independent sources for WP:CORPDEPTH. The two Route-one.net citations make only passing mention. The UK Bus Awards citation has a byline "content provided by Vectare". The operating area cites the company's own site in a password protect area. The sole objective citation was Coach&Bus Week which only mentioned their takeover of a park & ride service. Other sources refer to the company's own site. Blue Riband► 14:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sourced references included compared to some articles which remain and have no AFD - the operator is growing and over time more references will no doubt surface. Mranon2022 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:WAX. If in a few years time it becomes notable enough to gain substantial, independent coverage to show notability, the article can always be recreated. Storchy (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per source analysis by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highking's source analysis is persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Fork Junction, West Virginia

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

A couple references in real estate listings to the "Town of Clear Fork Junction" are quite confusing, as I can nothing referencing this significantly - simply as a railroad waypoint or references to geographic item's relative locations to this. Can't establish that this meets WP:GEOLAND and I'm seeing no evidence that WP:GNG is either. Hog Farm _Talk 03:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and West Virginia. Hog Farm _Talk 03:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete In recent years a bunch of houses have been built along the highway on the south side of the river, but the junction itself was removed long ago, and in its heyday there weren't significant structures there. Mangoe (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maps and newspapers refer to a railroad junction, not a community, and there's no significant coverage to establish GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabarmati University

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

I don't think that this university is notable per the Wikipedia policy. There's not many sources discussing this university. 747pilot (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Gujarat. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was founded in 2009 and is recognized by the University Grants Commission and is degree issuing University have added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Universities are generally notable.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~- not all universities/educational institutions are notable. There are quite many universities which don't meet this criteria, mainly smaller lesser known ones. 747pilot (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC) (Your nomination to delete is considered your "vote". You can comment but not vote more than once. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Universities are notable. Bruxton (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see the consensus is to Keep but it would be nice to see a mention of policy supporting your opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indeed. State-recognised universities are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.Keep- All colleges and Universities are de facto notable WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES 27.54.172.71 (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Honey Creek Township, White County, Indiana. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guernsey, Indiana

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

Yet another apparent case of a rail stop/post office elevated through GNIS to a "populated place" and thence to a "community" through WP's authorship. The only "habitation" now is an electrical substation which appears in aerials all the way back into the 1950s; a building which one might take as a station sits next to in that image, but that's it. The cited narrative essentially says nobody ever made a town here. Mangoe (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One source describes it as a "hamlet", but there's no evidence of legal recognition to meet GEOLAND and insufficient coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which source is that?
Djflem (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[36] page 249. –dlthewave ☎ 05:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Honey Creek Township. I always prefer to err on the side of retaining articles if there's even borderline evidence of past or present notability, but in this case I have to admit that Guernsey probably doesn't reach even that:
This 1896 map indicates it's just a post office and siding without lots, streets, or any other appurtenances of an actual town. (It also clearly places the PO & siding in Honey Creek instead of Union.) By 1920 it's gone from the maps entirely. Cram's 1888 rail map shows it as a rail station (named "Wright") as does an 1896 map, so it certainly existed, but it seems safe to say that almost nothing else was there. The Monon Railroad Historical-Technical Society says that prior to 1950 there was a grain elevator, but photos since show nothing but a railroad crossing. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I've described and cited what little is known of Guernsey in the Honey Creek Township article. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Honey Creek Township per work above and NGEO informal places.Djflem (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Oak University

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

The article does not show why Silver Oak University is notable at all. There is not much online about it either. 747pilot (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Gujarat. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was founded in 2009 and is recognized by the University Grants Commission and is degree issuing University.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Just because it's recognized does not necessarily mean it's notable. There are many educational institutions that do issue degrees but are not notable. This university does not fit the criteria for notability. 747pilot (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that any well-accredited degree-issuing tertiary educational institution is presumed to be notable if it is in a Western country (if you dispute this then please give a counter-example), but not if it is in a developing country. Why is that? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's that some editors' desperate urge to delete everything they come across is likely to fail for institutions in Western countries (or English-speaking ones, at least) and even they know that. Much easier to focus on colleges in Asia and Africa where they're more likely to succeed in their dream. Sadly WP:SYSTEMIC doesn't seem to apply as much as it once did. There was a time when almost no tertiary degree-granting institution was deleted at AfD. Now, if it's in Asia or Africa it's extremely unlikely that it will be kept if it's brought to AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment: Well, this is interesting timing. Note the recent news coverage due to a tax investigation raid and the ensuing public reaction. While this does diminish its status as a reputable institution, it IS coverage. I propose that deletion at least be postponed-- if this goes nowhere, we could redirect to some other page relating to the Income Tax division raids in August and September in Gujarat. (Income_Tax_Department#Recent_law_enforcement_actions_by_ITD, perhaps??) Gilded Snail (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed. State-recognised universities are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romar Frank

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he has significant coverage through the Gold Cup (plenty of articles online covering the games) and articles such as this and here.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first article fails WP:100WORDS and the second is routine/trivial coverage. This is a clear fails of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:100WORDS isn't policy, and second is your opinion. I don't agree.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @Ortizesp:. He is an internationally capped player with an ongoing career with some sources already. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I came to argue what exactly what Das osmnezz said. --Eranrabl (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:GNG failure, articles that are essentially just sentences clearly do not provide significant coverage under any reasonable definition, and a search brought up no better sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two sources linked above are clearly not independent SIGCOV, with the first having less than a sentence on him from what looks like a press release, and the second one is a couple quotes in another press release (from GFA). JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources proffered are well below requirements. Whether his career is ongoing or not is also completely irrelevant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t think the two sources within the article provide significant coverage and the article fails WP:GNG. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage unfortunately. I couldn't find anything substantial in a search of Grenada's newspapers. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Syrén

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is evidence she represented Sweden at according to the Swedish Football Association [37]. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @Dwanyewest:. Clearly significant figure in Swedish women's and international football at the time. She helped Sweden reach 3rd place in the 1989 European Competition for Women's Football and most likely has offline sources having played in the 1980s-1990s and maybe 2000s. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No one has identified any sources of SIGCOV, and global consensus rejects any arguments that playing high level football confers or indicates notability, so the keep !votes above must be discarded. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not one person has been able to locate even one example of significant coverage which could count towards WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG, this takes importance over any weak presumption of notability that could be gained from the handful of squad list mentions that have been found. The keep !votes above either seem to use WP:NFOOTBALL, which has been deprecated or WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES as an argument. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a search under "Pia Syrén fotbollsspelare" brought up nothing but database listings and a passing mention in this article. Seems to fail GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Haven’t been able to find any sources that would help to provide WP:GNG, and nor has anyone else. However, if anyone finds anything, please let me know. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with the recognition that the !votes to keep hinge on paywalled sources. If these are found not to meet the bar for GNG, a new AfD may be needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christin Lilja

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is evidence she represented Sweden at UEFA Women's Euro 1997 and played professionally for Athene Moss according to the Norwegian Football Federation. [38][39][40]. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all database sources and have no bearing on notability. Avilich (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does appear to be some evidence of notability, however is it enough for wikipedia? I struggle to find decent sources myself. But nine caps and two goals at international level. There should be better sourcing around for that surely? Govvy (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @Dwanyewest:. @GiantSnowman:, @Govvy: I found [41], [42], [43], [44], and [45]. Clearly significant figure in Swedish women's and international football at the time. She helped Sweden reach semis in the 1997 UEFA Women's Euro and most likely has offline sources having played in the 1990s-2000s. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Folkbladet - nowhere near sigcov of her. Gratistidning - a copy and paste of an article from her employer IFK Norrköping's website which makes it non-independent of her. The nt.se articles are paywalled. Can you share what they say? Last source is a podcast and is useless. Dougal18 (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed with Dougal that the sources above are not sufficient for GNG, and even if the NL articles contained SIGCOV they would count as one source and that's not enough. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the sources in the Norrköpings Tidningar article are paywalled, we can pretty well assume from the nature of both the newspaper and the titles that they provide SIGCOV. Since this newspaper is a major regional newspaper that serves several hundred thousand people, it is most likely a reliable source, as such this individual passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Devonian Wombat I disagree, those headlines read like either transactional retirement reports or interviews, but even if they were SIGCOV they count as ONE source so she still would not pass GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about former international footballer (helped Sweden reach the semis of a Euro) and current coach which appears to meet the GNG. The January 2011 NT article about her retirement is behind a paywall but appears likely to be SIGCOV. The July 2022 NT article about her coaching career also appears to be SIGCOV. I know that multiple articles from a "single organization or author" are usually counted as one source, but I don't think that makes much sense when the articles are from different authors, from different decades, and cover different aspects of her career (playing v. coaching). The Folkbladet article is close to SIGCOV but perhaps slightly short of it. On the balance though, I think we get there, and if it's slightly short, this is a good case for IAR (she didn't have an unimportant role in Swedish football). Jogurney (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those NT articles should be considered likely to contain independent SIGCOV -- there is no way to determine whether something is a routine report, a press release, or an interview, all of which are common on NT (see this random recent article I clicked on that turned out to be a press release based on their identical captions). Folkbladet uses the exact same caption as NT for their own "Lilja's important role" article, which suggests it's a news release rather than independent reporting. If we don't even have the authors of the articles, I also don't think we should be assuming the articles are independent. JoelleJay (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The !votes to keep are based largely on speculation about sources that ought to exist, rather than concrete evidence of coverage. While I'm sympathetic to arguments about the difficulty of accessing these, sources presented here, the "delete"s have it. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catarina Gjellan

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's evidence of some contemporary coverage here (albeit inaccessible except to members of Swedish libraries). There's also plenty of precedent for "pre-internet" international footballer articles being kept at AfD. See for E.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Rewenig. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent from before the RfC is not helpful here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL is not longer a valid criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable third person sources have being found for this article to assert it's notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @Bring back Daz Sampson: and @Dwanyewest:. Clearly significant figure in Swedish women's and international football at the time. She helped Sweden win the 1984 Women's Euro, their first ever major trophy, helped her club team Gideonsbergs IF win their only league title in 1992 and was nominated for the Medelpads Fotbollförbund's best ever player, and most likely has offline sources having played in the 1980s-1990s. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No one has identified a source of SIGCOV, which is required by our notability guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG, no SIGCOV. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not passing any basic notability standard. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence that the article will pass WP:GNG based on online English and Swedish-language sources. Unlike her teammate Pia Sundhage, it appears that Gjellan wasn't a notable member of the Euro winning side. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Southeastern Anatolia Project. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRT GAP

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, minimal independent sources, promotional article, not particularly notable. Nythar^T^.^C 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Organizations, and Turkey. Nythar^T^.^C 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant national TV Channel that has been broadcasting for over 30 years. Any potential promotional nature of the article is fixable, but not really a major cause of concern given that the channel is defunct. --PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing admin, please disregard the vote above as nearly all (if not all) of this users' votes have been keep while providing minimal and/or unreliable sources (see their contribs). Nythar^T^.^C 16:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you done WP:BEFORE ? --PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: Is there a reason you vote "keep" so often? For a user who's been here for only a week, you seem to know more than regular newcomers, unless you've previously edited using an IP or something. Nythar^T^.^C 16:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it's easier to participate substantially in an article discussion that in your opinion is obviously notable in some way rather than the articles where you have your doubts. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody who can read Turkish is able to provide proper reliable source coverage to get it over WP:GNG before this discussion closes, then keep; if they do not, then delete. Absolutely nothing that can ever be claimed about any topic ever exempts it from actually having to have sources — even an "inherently" notable claim still has to be verified by sourcing to support it. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Southeastern Anatolia Project Hello PiccklePiclePikel Even back then Turkey had lots of TV channels - why do you think this was significant? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided and quick duck search provided little coverage. Roostery123 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Southeastern Anatolia Project. Fails WP:NTV per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with the sourcing issues resolved. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Your Life

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. After a cleanup of promotional, unsourced, and trivial life-story style language, further searches show minimal results. Nythar^T^.^C 02:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Nythar^T^.^C 02:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that you have removed all the sources from the article right before nominating it for deletion? Music of Your Life is publicly traded under OTCQB:MYLI, Music Of Your Life, Inc. (OTCQB: MYLI) $82 Million Revenue Projected Transformation to Subscription Model. Have you done WP:BEFORE? I seem to be getting lots of results such as MAY 21, 2009, April 3, 1981 , June 20, 2016, thats sources from three separate decades.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: This is the version before I cleaned it up. Would you mind explaining how a primary source (the company website), WP:ROUTINE coverage by radio-info.com, and two other difficult-to-access sources (which do not alone appear to indicate notability) are relevant? Nythar^T^.^C 17:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you had removed only 2 sources. But now I see you have removed 4! Sources should not be removed simply because you were unable to access them. In addition with the two Billboard (magazine) articles that were referenced, the article would have apparently indicated its own notability in the version before your edits. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: No, for reasons included in my nomination summary. Read it. Nythar^T^.^C 17:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said "two other difficult-to-access sources (which do not alone appear to indicate notability)" regarding to the articles in Billboard (magazine), did you or did you not access them? PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: Have a look at what the Billboard sources are referenced for in the article. One of them cites something about playing hours of Frank Sinatra's music after his death, which isn't notable. The other is cited for two different things (a, b) which are about commercials and advertisements; see them for yourself. Neither the first Billboard source nor the second source are used to reference something of notability in the article. When I removed the non-notable sections, I also removed the sources; why would I just leave the sources, if they aren't used for anything? This + them being difficult to access (to answer your question, I didn't access them), led me to remove them. Objection? Nythar^T^.^C 17:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, you are not supposed to remove any sources for simply not being able to access them at the time. You have not read either of those articles that were used as sources. Also i'm not convinced that removing those sources and the sections of the article that those were used as references for was a right move as I think you simply saw the word "commercial" and decided it doesn't belong. Part of the sentences talk about the historical context of commercials and advertising at the time, that seems quite relevant in the context of an article about a radio station. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: This is going in the direction of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No, your description of what the Billboard sources reference is incorrect. Source #3 is placed after: "Films such as Sleepless in Seattle, and a number of commercials, had used the music found in the adult standards format." -- not relevant to the subject of the article, simply speaking of the history of "adult standards format" (see Category:Adult standards radio stations in the United States). Source #3 is also placed after: "Affiliates were learning that going after over-50 listeners was nothing to be ashamed of; these people were active and had much money to spend, and advertisers could reach them if they just made the effort." -- again, not relevant; it's referring to history. Source #4 is placed after: "When Frank Sinatra died in 1998, Music of Your Life played 36 straight hours of his music. Since more people listened to this special programming than to what the format usually aired, the popularity of the music with a new audience was reinforced." -- is this promotional, non-notable section the only notable thing this radio network has done?
1. Moving on to these new sources you provided -- so what if it's publicly traded? Another source you've provided (Yahoo Finance) seems to me to be routine coverage -- it's Yahoo Finance, a finance website, and it's focused on CEO Marc Angell's "expectations" (saying he "expects") with insignificant amounts of company history. Also, it's an interview; see WP:42#Independent Sources. It's also a promotional article, asking the reader to visit the Music of Your Life website.
2. The World Radio History source is also an interview (see bottom-left and top-center of the PDF).
3. The Prweb source isn't an wp:independent source. The author is MARC ANGELL, the CEO of the company that owns Music of Your Life (see right side).
You've presented your points and I've presented mine. End of exchange. Nythar^T^.^C 20:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it sounds exactly as if WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies to you. The point is, you DELETED a source that you DID NOT READ. You do not know to what extent the source talked about Music of Your Life specifically and presumably one of those articles was quite specifically about it given that Music of Your Life is in the title. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: Please remain civil. No, the problem isn't that I removed a source "that I didn't read". I removed the section that cited it and there wasn't a need for it. I don't have to read it. Nythar^T^.^C 20:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About your earlier question, you are right, but "Editors coming across an article of ... a company without ... references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." per WP:LISTED. Generally we should not just remove sources. Even if it was the right move to delete that part of the article, which is an open question since none of us actually read the source, you can keep the source there in a list of sources that do not have in-line citations. We don't know what other parts of the article used information from that source since the article lacks substantial in-line citations. Then, later on, an editor who is able to access that source, or looks up that text in a physical library, can make a judgement based on the actual contents of that source. It seems a bit disingenuous to put up an article for deletion citing 'inability to find sources', when you have personally deleted sources from that same article that you have not had access to.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: Okay that makes sense, I've readded both Billboard references. The primary source and the WP:ROUTINE radio-info.com I've kept out. Nythar^T^.^C 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources found, one brief mention of the host, rest are hits on the phrase. Not sure how they could distribute the music over the internet in 1997 to HD radio stations, the bandwidth wasn't available yet and you were still in the era of floppy discs and CD-R's that crapped out of you sneezed on them, with a whopping 2x recording speed. Almost appears made up. Oaktree b (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used are from 1997, but the "thing" has been distributing music since 1978? That's well before the computer era. The article is nonsense as it stands. TNT is the best option, with proper sourcing, but none has been found; still leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any reliable sources about the history of this enterprise. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep per below I was trying to remember where I've heard of TVS before, and then I remembered TVS Television Network, who had its trademarks bought out by one of those "Internet moguls" who throw a bunch of random public domain or giveaway content onto a server under its name and call it a Roku channel and whose spam I had to keep out of a historical article (see here for what they air, a lot of sketchy 'off-VHS' content which I'm sure they don't own or is in the 'orphaned' grey area where its ultimate owners in old sports leagues no longer exist).

So for this...a dying trademark for a very terminal and generic 'nostalgia standards' format whose only WP:N was a trademark for a radio network at a time they were rare, but is now standard in the radio industry, and paying celebrities to patter between the music to instead of generic DJs, with ratings that barely exist. And since 2013 when it was sold off it's been part of those 'Internet moguls with big dreams' networks you've probably got spam about as a Pink Sheets 'investment opportunity' (yup, it's one of those penny stocks) involving dead properties that are resurrected as barely-viable zombie operations (there are multiple standards stations that don't make you pay $5/month to access just one audio feed on a WordPress site of questionable security). It's part of a company called The Marquie Group that also has...a beauty line?! And I guess a CBD line (which is a vanity company for the owner's wife, who apparently hosts a beauty tips segment for millennials and zoomers on an AM standards radio network for some reason. Yeah...). This isn't anything outside a small mention in the Peter Marshall, Wink Martindale and Gary Owens articles as part of their late life sections when the network was viable, not a money vacuum for weird daytraders. Nate • (chatter) 10:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refocus on the original radio format. It looks like corporate cruft in the present day, from which no notability is derived, is weighing the page down badly. However, there is SIGCOV on the network and stations from the 80s. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed; those sources truly help the article and it should be focused on its successful prime, not its struggling current penny stock iteration; despite what I said above, I knew Sammi would find much better sources for this which are much more promising than the Angell version. Nate • (chatter) 19:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrschimpf (and others), I have refocused the article using the references below and others. I can't get any SIGCOV or even an interview quote past 2009, so I'm not sure how much of its latter-day existence can or should be covered. I think that the sources I have found and rewritten copy also rebut the assertions by @Oaktree b in particular. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep as this brand was popular amongst older listeners in years gone by. It is also, in radio circles, so synonymous with the adult standards format that “Music of Your Life”, or “MOYL”, gets used as the format’s name instead of adult standards. It has become the generic term in some cases like Kleenex has to facial tissue. Stereorock (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to create a redirect from this title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lake Shopping Centre

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

A 2012 NAC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Village Shopping Centre based on, IMO, false premises. Australia is well covered by reliable sources. This is not a question of representation in non English language media. Also, much has changed w/r/t organizational notability since then and I am unable to find evidence that this is a notable mall. There are hits, which include a cancelled expansion, an application for a car wash, job fairs hosted at the mall and coverage of events, such as a parking lot carjacking, but nothing that adds to WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 01:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Australia. Star Mississippi 01:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping prior participants who remain active: @Armbrust, Bidgee, and Gene93k: Star Mississippi 01:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost a run of the mill shopping center, nothing architecturally exciting about it, not historic, hardly noteworthy. No sources found beyond routine announcements as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete with no claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill shopping centre. Is very small in size and has very little in the way of independent secondary sources to provide notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect to Forest Lake, Queensland - a clear alternative to deletion that must be considered before deletion. It is an appropriate redirect too and keeps the history of the page. Deus et lex (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstmark Credit Union

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

The promotional tone could be fixed, however a BEFORE identifies only more of what's in the article, churnalism and PR coverage of some of their community engagement. Nothing to indicate the company meets N:ORG. Star Mississippi 01:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Texas. Star Mississippi 01:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing found beyond the usual PR fluff, "one member wins $5000" and the like. They've been around since 1932, I'd expect something out there, but nothing... Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Epicure

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

This article is about a chef that lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article fails to establish notability. The version at nomination has 6 references:

Allrecipes interview - not a reliable source
Chef Vibes - a blog which is not a reliable source
Benjaminepicure - the subject's own website which is clearly not independent
Tripadvisor - not a reliable source
Scoopearth "article" - Scoop Earth is not a reliable source and advertises its services including as digital marketing.
Smithmorecastle - the subject's place of work is clearly not indpendent.

This paid article fails to establish notability with the provided sources and I cannot find any coverage in my own searches. Whpq (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete no sources found; I almost thought his name was a marketing gimmick (Epicure chef, very nice), but I guess not. Sources found are what's in the article, his website, trip advisor and his employer's website. A good chef, but not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Smithmore Castle. The article has already been paid with the disclosure template included in the talk page, and was edited to sound non-promotional. As the subject is an employee of Smithmore Castle, the subject could have some of his related information in there. (E.g. There would be a new section or header that would include all the people related to Smithmore. After having significant coverage in the near future, then the subject involved could have his Wikipedia page live. ReVeluv02 (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no independent reliable sources to support even merging. As well, I'm in the middle of WP:BEFORE activity which may result in an AFD for the target article. Whpq (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you for the response. I understand your discussion. Maybe could at least be considered for a redirect to Smithmore Castle rather than deleting? ReVeluv02 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have just nominated Smithmore Castle for deletion. Whpq (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, just saw the nomination. ReVeluv02 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, Iraq, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete for reasons already discussed BostonMensa (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - truly awful paid editing. If Epicure is notable, which is not at all clear from the sources, then he deserves a better article than this, and his money back from the authoring editor. As an aside, why does their Talkpage not disclose they are receiving payment for churning out this crap? KJP1 (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently nothing in terms of reliable, independent sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Mill, Virginia

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

This is a mill that was mislabeled as a populated place by GNIS and subsequently created as an "unincorporated community" stub. I could not locate any independent sourcing that mentions a community of this name, and the few newspaper hits covering minor occurrences at the mill are insufficient to meet GNG. This article was recently PROD deleted and subsequently restored by a request for undeletion. Although any PROD can be reversed upon request, this particular request seems to misunderstand both the purpose of Wikipedia (they mentioned its usefulness to genealogy research, which typically uses primary sources that cover topics far below our notability standards) and the reliability of sources that came up in a Google search (RoadsideThoughts and Hometown Locator are notorious GNIS scrapers). –dlthewave ☎ 00:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. –dlthewave ☎ 00:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newspapers.com hits [46][47][48][49][50] describe it only as a mill property owned by E.B. Travis in 1905 and F.M. Travis in 1920. No evidence of being a notable community. Dozens of similarly negligently mass-produced pages in Template:Caroline County, Virginia should be likewise deleted. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NGEO and GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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