Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 27

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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith Vaissaire

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

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South America. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Although the subject hadn't much coverage, I managed to find 3 sources (1 & 2 & 3) and added them to the page. She plays for a Dutch club and two of the sources are in Dutch meaning that she managed to attract some local media attention in the Netherlands. AmshitBalcon (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 seems to be a translation of the 2nd (or the other way around), and neither that nor the 3rd say much more that she was called for the national team, so that's not a GNG pass. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per AmshitBalcon. I found 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, among many more Dutch sources. Clearly significant figure in Surinamese women's football with ongoing international career and club career abroad. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ED source is paywalled. The others are the usual drivel you claim is GNG/SIGCOV. Vaissaire lives and plays in the Netherlands so doesn't have a "club career abroad". That shows your understanding of the sources. BTW playing football no longer makes someone notable so stop spamming AFD with that non argument. Dougal18 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 21:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If we look at the sources provided above, it is clear that most of them are versions of the same press release announcing a Suriname call-up for Vaissaire (and another diaspora player). This press release contains very little information about Vaissaire; she plays amateur football for SSS in the Topklasse (second level) and futsal for a club that competes in district-level tournaments. There is a Suriname match preview which drops her name, and a note that she won an award with her futsal team. This coverage is about all I could find online, and it is woefully short of satisfying the WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources clearly do not demonstrate GNG. Agreed with Dougal18 about spamming useless sources. JoelleJay (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Needs additional citations Zangoaviation (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Zangoaviation (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Sources do not meet GNG. Please stop spamming AfDs with passing mentions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a fundamental disagreement about the quality of sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The sources are not strong enough for WP:GNG or WP:NFOOT. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the subject passes WP:GNG. Merely being a player cutteth not the mustard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don’t see any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:NATHLETE is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:NATHLETE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:NATHLETE or GNG. Essentially, I don’t see any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:NATHLETE is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:NATHLETE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:NATHLETE or GNG. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jogurney's comment 2 weeks ago is still relevant here. Nobody has been able to present any evidence of sourcing that helps address the shortfalls that have been pointed out on 16/3. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although some references were presented but I feel they are not notable enough to support the "Keep" claim. Charsaddian (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ascend Music

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. Sourced to puff pieces or advertorial/partnered content. KH-1 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — None of the sources are strong enough to show notability. Some of the sources might make a case for 'Ascend Agency' being notable, but this article itself makes it clear that Ascend Music is a subsidiary thereof, and that they are not one and the same. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree, fails WP:NCORP - vanity publishing for music. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akeem Williams

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything that contradicts the nominator. Searchlight and Wired868 prove that he exists but the depth is weak. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Stewart (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Maldives, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, have to concur with my colleagues - it's all Wiki-clones, generic database entries and stray social media posts. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Straightforward, fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dishi Somani

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

No sources found. Instagram, Linkedin, then her website. appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any articles that do exist about her are not from reputable sources ULPS (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
The article link provided by team Dishi Somani, are all authentic and are all from the reputative media. These all are organic articles which are done by reputative and senior journalist of different publications.
Authentic and reputable sources of articles and mentions are -
(1)https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/dishi-somani?from=mdr,
(2) https://ianslife.in/culture/seven-women-entrepreneurs-who-turned-their-passion-profession,
(3)https://www.bhaskar.com/women/this-is-me/news/started-jewelery-business-in-5-thousand-rupees-now-turnover-of-lakhs-competition-from-brands-like-tanishq-malabar-gold-129495783.html
(4)https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/spend/buying-silver-jewellery-know-how-price-is-calculated-by-jeweller-other-things-to-keep-in-mind/articleshow/94955633.cms
(5)https://www.bhaskar.com/women/this-is-me/news/started-jewelery-business-in-5-thousand-rupees-now-turnover-of-lakhs-competition-from-brands-like-tanishq-malabar-gold-129495783.html
(6)https://ianslife.in/culture/seven-women-entrepreneurs-who-turned-their-passion-profession
(7) https://www.jagran.com/news/career-got-into-business-after-listening-to-the-heart-says-dishi-somani-22873520.html
Apart from the links you have mentioned-the websites have high domain authority. Times of India, Yourstory.com,Economic times, IANS, Outlook all are reputable sources mentioning Dishi Somani. Shobhit Sabbarwal (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBASIC. Agree with @ULPS, there aren't any reputable sources that I found to meet guidelines for WP:BLP. I found some sources that mention her, but unclear if they are actually reputable. 1 2 3

RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rarely do we see such a clear-cut, outstanding candidate for a good deletion. Fails WP:GNG, promotional. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Skynxnex (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- Please find linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/dishi-somani-a12b2111/?originalSubdomain=in,

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/dishi.somani/ DISHI SOMANI (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well that's helpful... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article about a non notable subject. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Another day, another G5. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Crawley

AfDs for this article:

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

Not meeting ACTOR or GNG. No sourcing found, Behind the Voice actors, then tv tropes and Fandom, then it peters off. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have gone G4 on this one (no criticism implied). Minor roles, minor productions, sourcing problematic, much as before. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, from what I remember of the first time round (vague), I think G4 applies - there's exactly one new datum on here (the 2022-2023 role). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the first time, the notability of an actor does not reside in the list of his roles per se, it resides in the quality and depth of reliable source coverage about him and his roles that he does or doesn't have in media and/or books. But the references here aren't reliable or notability-building sources at all, and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that might not have Googled I still just get glancing namechecks of his existence as a cast member in stuff rather than notability-building coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Daddy's BBQ Sauce

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

Fails corporate notability guidelines (WP:CORP); defunct company that I could not find additional sources for with google. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, and Oklahoma. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tagged for notability since 2013? Good grief. There are 1,000 Big Daddy's out there, mostly BBQs with/or sauces of which one is in Tulsa. They're none of them particularly notable AFAICS, this one less so than most. That story about sports sponsorship is an unusual outlier and is itself strangely random. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Alexandermcnabb -Drdisque (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's almost as if "Big Daddy('s)" is the go-to name for barbecue sauces. Any sources that I am able to find are for other companies with a similar name and irrelevant to establishing notability here. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources that I am able to find I see what you did there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but if there happen to be relevant sources that others are able to find, I would of course be willing to assess those objectively. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Humour. Any sauces. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I never really understood how this even got its own article, even as a diehard NASCAR fan. Controversies surrounding its racing sponsorships probably would have been best explained in a NASCAR team's article, i.e. Larry Hedrick Motorsports. Plus, you know how many barbeque sauces are called Big Daddy? Nascar9919 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability on my own search. Appears to be a defunct company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Kindgen

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Of the five references included, 3 of them are sports database entries. Another is an interview, which as a primary source does not go towards notability. And the fifth, while in-depth, is from a source, erft-kurier, which I am not sure qualifies as a reliable source as it seems to be an advertising platform. Was draftified in hopes of improvment, but was returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@onel5969 - Please see the updated sources. Thanks.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Robby.is.on and KatoKungLee updates and citation population that has been added to the article since it was raised to AfD. To me there is enough to warrant a GNG pass. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. What sources are significant? If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 21:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Govvy, Robby.is.on, and KatoKungLee. @GiantSnowman:, I found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6], among many more German sources. Definelty also has offline sources, having made 100+ appearances in fully pro German 2. Bundesliga in extensive 12+ year career during 1990s. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not impressed by the level of coverage; these are mostly either passing mentions or interviews. –dlthewave ☎ 00:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews are valid coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which policy/guideline supports your position? WP:SIGCOV requires secondary sources, and WP:NOR makes it clear that interviews are considered primary sources for Wikipedia's purposes. –dlthewave ☎ 12:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while interviews are valid coverage, as they are primary sources, they do not go towards WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The article has been refbombed with databases/interviews/brief mentions and non independent of Kindgen sources. Dougal18 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; Kindgen doesn't appear to be notable as a footballer or employee of the player's union since I cannot locate WP:SIGCOV in any online sources. There are some Q&A interviews such as the one with his youth club (linked at the de:wiki article) or at wuppertaler-rundschau.de (the same interview is hosted elsewhere too), but these lack independent coverage beyond a few brief statements about his career (while making 100+ appearances in the 2. Bundesliga seems to be a significant achievement on its face, I'm just not finding any in-depth reportage of that achievement - perhaps because it occurred in the 1990s). Some of the sources linked above have almost nothing to do with Kindgen (especially the one from zeit.de), and are woefully short of in-depth coverage. Jogurney (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - KatoKungLee has spent a long time doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". On top of that he definelty also has offline sources, having made 100+ appearances in fully pro German 2. Bundesliga in extensive 12+ year career during 1990s. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz What would you say are the WP:THREE best significant sources that goes towards GNG that have been added since the start of the AfD? Alvaldi (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Sources are database entries, trivial mentions or interviews (that for obvious reasons are not independent of the subject). Alvaldi (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While there are policy driven rationales for keeping the article, there are also policy driven rationales for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing to keep, the deletion arguments also have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP Fails GNG and BIO. The article has been refbombed with databases/interviews/brief mentions, none of it meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 20:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found this newspaper article about him, which suggests there are many more offline sources about him, having made 100+ appearances in fully pro German 2. Bundesliga in extensive 12+ year career during 1990s. In addition, KatoKungLee has spent a long time doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". The article is already a decent size and meets WP:SPORTSBASIC. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I see a consensus to keep, even preceding the prior relist. As such, I am closing this as keep. While I doubt there will be any objection, anyone who might take issue with this closure is free to let me know. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Licious

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

written like an advertisement Endrabcwizart (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added third-party reliable sources for India's 29th unicorn.--Curvasingh (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Karnataka. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article isn't great, but it isn't blatantly promotional either. There is enough coverage even without considering the funding-announcement press releases. Walt Yoder (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wouldn't agree the nominator on taking this article through AFD. The grammar and other minor copyediting should be addressed. The word "Lucious" is repetitive in most sentences which should be trimmed down to make it the article more encyclopaedic. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't seems like promotional. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input, even though consensus is already leaning towards "keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is it a unicorn? Like a horse with a horn? Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, it's a term from startup culture, see Unicorn (finance). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lowe Roche

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

Blatant PR and Advertisement. Not notable DreamlarT (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid rationale for deletion provided. This is a 4-sentence stub about a defunct advertising company (and has been for a decade) - it is certainly not "Blatant PR and Advertisement". Walt Yoder (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How can it be PR/advertising when the company hasn't operated since 2015? ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reasoning as ScienceMan. -- Grapefanatic (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject has appeared in media to a degree sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV guidelines and warrant keeping the article under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. In addition, the subject also meets WP:NCORP as well. The case for deletion would be stronger if these conditions weren’t met (i.e. if the subject didn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG). However, the degree to which the subject has appeared in media is sufficient to satisfy the relevant guidelines SIGCOV, RS, GNG, and NOTABILITY, and as such the argument for keeping is stronger on its merits than that for deletion. The sources provided in the table above satisfy SIGCOV requirements necessary to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG guidelines. On my own review of the subject and sources, I find that notability criteria are met by the amount of demonstrable reliable independent source significant coverage. Additionally, the nature of the coverage indicates WP:IMPACT, which also supports inclusion as a standalone article under inclusion guidelines. The fact that promotional material exists on the subject is not a valid reason to suggest deletion (many subjects covered in Wikipedia articles are heavily promoted outside of Wikipedia, but that doesn’t negate their notability). Furthermore, the subject does indeed pass notability thresholds under the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 11:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San Agustin, Arizona

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

Topo maps show a "San Augustin Ranch" in the 1940s which inexplicably becomes just "San Augustin" in the 1979 edition. I couldn't find any coverage of this location; the Arizona papers only mention a cathedral in Tuscon and a place in the Phillipines of the same name. There's no evidence of either official recognition or significant coverage that would establish notability for this spot. (Note to closer: Please remove this entry entirely from any lists and templates instead of simply delinking.) –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication this is a notable community, as obvious in the maps Reywas92^Talk 23:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Lucia, Arizona

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

Could not find any coverage of this spot; satellite view shows a few old ranch buildings. (Note to closer: Please delete from any lists and templates onstead of just delinking) –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously no populated place here in the satellite image, no notability shown otherwise. Reywas92^Talk 23:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria, Arizona

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

GNIS lists two places with this name on the outskirts of Phoenix [7][8], however I could not find evidence of significant coverage or official recognition for either. –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage needed for supposed former place now incorporated in a major city. Reywas92^Talk 23:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bensimon Byrne

AfDs for this article:

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

No reason for Wikipedia inclusion. Advertisement only page DreamlarT (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The firm keeps a low profile but is Canada's largest domestic ad agency and has been involved in various high-profile political and ad campaigns described in the media. ScienceMan123 (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like this editor's other nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowe Roche, no good reason for deletion provided. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not overly promotional, therefore the reason for nomination seems to be invalid. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sikort Chuapo, Arizona

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

Could not find any significant coverage to establish notability for this spot. Older maps show a few buildings near the eponymous well; satellite view shows only a corral. –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Constantino (MMA trainer)

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

Probable COI/vanity page. Removed a bunch of promotional fluff and page doesn't meet notability. Nswix (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Martial arts. Nswix (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Famous guy that works with other famous people" isn't notable. Very much a vanity page. I don't find extensive (or much of any) coverage for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That statement was entered by another individual which does not describe Michael Constantino's career. It would be pre-mature to delete Mr. Constantino's page when he clearly has had an extensive truthful career. I feel the comment should most definitely be deleted but not any other information including the page. Vdm2011 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So he's not famous? That isn't helping the discussion. This is a fluffy piece with no indication as to why he's notable, with no links to extensive coverage in anything close to the New York Times or the like. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, however Mr. Constantinos page is a bio of his accomplishments in his career in MMA and other fields. Successful training of many fighters who went on to become UFC champions. It hardly qualifies for a deletion.

The quote " Famous guy who works with other famous people was never added by his team. As wikipedia is a community effort we can not control the outcome of individuals content" Thank you. Vdm2011 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, we're here looking for reliable sources that mention the subject so we can keep their article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the coverage can be considered significant independent coverage of him. I got a 404 error on several and the others were, at best, interview questions after fights. Successful is not the same as WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully. I beg to differ. The coverage is not the only accomplishment listed on his page. He has an extensive bio beyond "coverage". There are wikis with a lot less skilled individuals. Vdm2011 (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please just show me the coverage that meets WP:GNG and I'm more than willing to support this article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Additionally his training center, AMA Fight Club, may also not be notable after looking at those refs. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that either this article or the one on his club has the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. He's not even mentioned in some of the references on fighters he's supposedly trained. I was thinking about voting for a redirect to the club article but it doesn't seem notable to me, though a redirect would be reasonable (at least as long as that article exists). Both were created by an SPA. Papaursa (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the club for deletion, it's clearly Promo. It has even less sourcing than this guy's article does. Oaktree b (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
VDM2011 has only edited this article, one about the club and two fighters. They went silent for a decade until this nomination, oddly enough. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons I've previously mentioned. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable subject, notability is not inherited. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Dooley and Pals Show

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

Deprodded without explanation by a date-change vandal. Original rationale, by Liz (talk · contribs), was:

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would presume a show that was "repackaged multiple times and syndicated" is notable. And the article says "This first Dooley series won three Emmys" which (if verifiable) should be more than sufficient to demonstrate the relevance of the topic. However, I can't find any sourcing beyond (unlinkable) YouTube episode videos and a few trivial mentions -- which is insufficient to write an article. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources 3 and 6 provided by Cunard. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tiffany, Laura (2004-10-31). "The Dooley and Pals Show Vols. 1–3". Video Store Magazine. Vol. 26, no. 45. p. 36.EBSCOhost 14933353.
  The article notes: ""The Dooley and Pals Show" is a well-produced educational show that blends live action, music, puppetry and cartoons, and is full of warm and cuddly lessons. Each episode has a unifying theme — like home-sickness, how families differ or welcoming a new kid — but lots of other lessons are packed in. In one episode, Dooley receives advice on his insomnia; letter carrier Ms. Z introduces the group to the letter "S"; a puppet is taught that "no" isn't a magic word; a song helps kids keep track of their things; and even the Spanish phrase for "sweet dreams" is slipped in. The show can be an exhausting watch if you don't have a toddler-sized attention span, but it's perfect for its core audience. The songs are catchy, the dance moves (performed by ages 7 to 11) are easy to follow, and the many lessons are age-appropriate. "
2. Berman, Pat (2001-02-11). "S.C. ETV shows off its technology (and Dooley) during family day". The State. Archived from the original on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "But the big "D" as in Dooley was the draw of the day. The antennaed, pink-faced Dooley, described by a TV writer as "a happy, bug-like critter from another planet" can be seen daily in a before- and after-school children's program called "Dooley and Pals Show." Smart Cat and Arthur, two other popular characters, also drew crowds. But children willingly waited in a line that snaked through the studio corridors, out the door and down the block for the chance to have their picture taken with Dooley."
3. Abbott, Jim (2000-06-29). "An acute case of Barney burnout influences new preschooler show" (pages 1 and 2). Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "If Dooley, which airs at 7 a.m. Sundays on WMFE-Channel 24, really is hipper than Barney, he uses similar techniques to reach young minds. Produced by Orlando-based Victory Entertainment Corp., Dooley features plenty of music, a cast of fresh-faced youngsters and themes about friendship, responsibility and learning. ... Each episode features a visit from the local mail carrier (Orlando actor DaVonda Simmons) and guidance from a nurturing mother, played by Orlando actor Ginger Lee McDermott. While many children's shows and prime-time sitcoms portray adults as clueless comedic foils, Dooley uses them as role models."
4. Sitarz, Joseph (2000-11-22). "Dooley to make parade debut". The Index-Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""The Dooley and Pals Show" is the popular children's show on public television stations around the country. Dooley was created by Greenwood's Mark Riddle with Gary Zeidenstein. ... "The Dooley and Pals Show" is crafted around the concept that education through entertainment and discovery. The show used music, dancing with highly-educational life lessons and pro-social skills. The show is geared for 2-5 year olds."
5. "Dooley is Jerry's pal". The Index-Journal. 2000-09-02. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com . {{cite news}}: no-break space character in |url= at position 61 (help); no-break space character in |via= at position 19 (help)
  The article notes: ""The Dooley and Pals Show" is a weekly series centering on Dooley, a friendly alien who lands in the backyard of an Earth family and quickly makes friends with not only the family but the neighborhood children as well. The children become role models, demonstrating to young viewers the value of knowledge and learning. The series combines live action with 3D animation, talented children and dozens of original songs. The series is created on the premise that play enables children to grow socially, emotionall, intellectually and physically to their maximum potential."
6. "'Dooley and Pals' now on DVD: Emmy Award-winning show created by Greenwood native" (pages 1 and 2). The Index-Journal. 2005-09-04. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""'Dooley and Pals' is unique as a series by its use of the principle of reinforcement," said Dr. Gordon Berry, Educational Consultant and Professor Emeritus at the Graduate School of Education, UCLA. "The life lessons in each episode will be carried throughout the show and then summarized in a distinct ending.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Dooley and Pals Show to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV is sufficient to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY requirements for inclusion. The nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT, therefore justifying a standalone article. I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, removing any concerns about WP:PROMO. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG are met. Additionally, there is plenty of SIGCOV to demonstrate the subject’s notability in a manner that satisfies the relevant guidelines for the subject. I would be more likely to push for deletion if the subject weren’t notable or if coverage was of a WP:ROUTINE/WP:TRIVIAL nature failing to meet WP:SIGCOV, but this simply isn’t the case because reliable independent sources effectively establish the subject’s WP:NOTABILITY. The case for deletion would be stronger if notability and significant coverage requirements weren’t satisfied. However, since they are satisfied, the stronger case to be made here is that for inclusion. For these reasons, keeping the article is the appropriate course of action. Deletion rationales pointing to a lack of RS SIGCOV don’t have much weight in this case, since the subject does have sufficient coverage of a significant nature by independent WP:RS. I will also point out that the subject meets WP:GNG requirements, as demonstrated by the available reliable sources which establish WP:NOTABILITY. Since all of these conditions are met, the article should be kept. Deletion would be more appropriate for an article on a subject without demonstrable notability via lack of adequate WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Due to this subject’s notability, however, the article should not be considered eligible for deletion. Also, the nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT (i.e. this justifies a standalone article). I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, removing any concerns about WP:PROMO. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG are met. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Life Is...

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

Couldn't find a source on the charting, although those websites have always confused me so maybe someone else can. If that can be found, this is more promising, though I also couldn't find any other reliable coverage so it's probably still not notable even then. Redirect to Ken Hirai if not kept. See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missin' You (It Will Break My Heart). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LIFE is... QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ken Hirai discography seems to suggest it was a number one album in Japan. And possible platinum there too? If true, this album almost certainly received the coverage to be considered notable. It's likely just locked away in Japanese hard copy sources, as it was a 2003 release before the internet age. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likely the case, yeah, but we can't just leave an article up with no reliable coverage on the assumption that it exists somewhere, right? On the bright side, the discog page did lead me to a source for the charting here which I believe is reliable. The cert source was annoying to navigate but does confirm. At least we've got that much nailed down now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a known notable album like this, I'd prefer keeping it as a stub with the sales/charting/tracklist info and tag it for improvement/expansion, over deletion/merging. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know what, that's fair enough. The charting and cert are strong enough that it could probably get kept on those alone, and since we have sources confirming them now (which I will add momentarily), I don't see why I shouldn't withdraw this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Oricon chart linked above. Went to #1 in Japan and stayed on the chart for 89 weeks. Dekimasuよ! 04:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it topped a major national albums chart. Strip it down to stub status if you must, but don't delete an article for an album of this caliber. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, top artist and album topped chart. Fulmard (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely notable and noteworthy, having topped a chart and selling close to a million copies in Japan. I would imagine most coverage is in Japanese. Unless the nominator knows Japanese (yes, even with a title in English), Japanese-language sources are not easy to find through Google searches for 20-year-old albums. I know from experience. Ss112 00:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also well aware of the trouble with finding foreign-language sources on Google which is why I don't ever search just there. In this case, even with an expanded search, I didn't find much. But it matters not as this is getting kept either way (and I've already withdrawn above). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Parata

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

Tagged it for notability, hoping that it might be improved, but the tag was removed without improvement. The refs in the development section are either primary, or short blurbs, with no in-depth coverage of the character development. In the reception section there 8 new refs. The first is a brief mention of the character, and is about why the actor left the show. The second is an awards show announcement - now I can't access it, but awards shows are about the actor, not the character. The third is a one-line mention. Likewise, the fourth is also a single line mention. The fifth, actually mentions him several times, but it is a plot synopsis. The same for numbers six and seven. Number eight, again talks about the character, but again is plot synopsis. There are 4 other refs in the section, which were used earlier in the article, but none of them are in-depth about the character. On the whole, there is not a single in-depth source about the real-world notability of the character, all of it is in-universe. As per WP:NOTPLOT, this does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Qwv (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article definitely meets notability. If this is simply an issue with references, they can be improved, as can in-universe information. I must admit when I saw your tag it looked like it had been tagged without the article or the subject being read or understood. In my opinion, this shouldn't have automatically nominated for deletion because the tag was removed. This is something that can be resolved by discussion on a talk page 5 albert square (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.On the whole, there is not a single in-depth source about the real-world notability of the character, all of it is in-universe. – That's not even remotely true. I think it also shows that you haven't been through all of the refs (or showed good faith for those offline). What about the interviews with the actor discussing his character? The news sources talking about how he's part of the first Maori family on the show? I believe there are enough sources covering real-world info pertaining to the character to pass WP:GNG. I wouldn't have had the article moved to the mainspace if I didn't think it was okay. Yeah, there probably are some in-universe bits, but nothing that can't be rewritten. Deletion is a bit much, no? If you want an apology for removing the tag, then I'm sorry. I genuinely thought it was a drive-by tagging from someone who quickly glanced at the article. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:June found 57 CREDIBLE Sources off her *own* back and the article "fails to meet notability"? Call BS on this. Smacks of someone throwing their weight around. Conquistador2k6 (Yo, Talk to me) 21:34 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep - This article clearly passes WP:GNG. Home and Away is a television series broadcast in multiple countries and this subject is about a prominent character in the series. There are numerous sources cited in the article and my assessment is some of the more trivial ones have been highlighted above. But they are needed since they support information in the article. The character development is clearly explained throughout using the sources. Those sources in those sections that you could scrutinise are used to support the claims in character development. This character is part of the first Maori family on the show. Notable that the article documents the need for authenticity and the show's efforts to reflect Maori culture via the character to an Australian audience. In the reception the award info is cited to a magazine source. Accessing the source on Readly, this is directly to do with the character since the nomination is for his role in Home and Away. Perhaps the sources do not include endless paragraphs of character analysis - they still have writer's opinions included in them, so I fail to see why they should be discounted here. As mentioned above, this nomination was created after a notability tag was removed. It does come off as using AFD as a weapon in retaliation.Rain the 1 21:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination, AfD is not the place to request article improvement and deletion is nothing like improvement. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 23:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – this article has 50+ sources that JuneGloom07 has worked tirelessly on including and a deletion is not appropriate at all. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above discussion. The sources provided by JuneGloom07 show that this subject has received significant attention from third-party, reliable sources so it passes the WP:GNG standards. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the reception section alone demonstrates notability. – Meena • 09:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has sufficient sources to prove notability. ––– GMH Melbourne TALK 11:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is demonstrably notable. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenage Sharks

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

Non-notable minor league / semi professional ice hockey team. Natg 19 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and England. Natg 19 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling in these other semi-pro/minor league teams from the same locale:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to National Social Security Fund (Uganda). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kimbowa

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

Non-notable businessman, no independent sources to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uganda. Jdcooper (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the content is unsourced, and was added in Special:Permalink/1142617223 by an IP editor earlier this month. The previous version is equally promotional and also unsourced. If somebody thinks they are able to reduce the article to something salvageable, they are welcome to try. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Social Security Fund (Uganda) and salt. Only notable connection at this time. That it has blown up twice to be promotional material is annoying. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Angus :3 F4U (they /it) 11:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect to 2012 Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council election. Obvious WP:DUPLICATE page hardly needs further discussion. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council elections

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

Article is a duplicate of 2012 Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council election M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council election as an alternative to deletion. Natg 19 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 14:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 NCAA Women's Gymnastics Championship

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

Another reversal of a redirect, with zero in-depth coverage from independent sources. Should have remained a redirect until it could be properly sourced, but since it's been challenged, we are here. Currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have an article for every other edition ever. That's why I thought a discussion worthwhile and reverted the redirect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would this technically fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL? I feel that more coverage would be released once the event actually happens. Is there a way to restore back into a draftspace? Otherwise, I agree it won't qualify currently. Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.EugeneKrab$: It starts in two days. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @BeanieFan11: Oh, in that case, maybe more coverage will be released soon? (Sorry, new to this.) I agree with you that there are articles for every other edition: so why shouldn't there be for this one? Might need the opinion of another, older editor. I vote to Keep. Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I vote keep. Regional semifinals are happening now (March 29-31) and the regional finals are April 1-2. At most this article just needs references for the results. Mypurplelightsaber (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kungrat (1827)

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

The article is unreferenced. Although this is not a sufficient reason for deletion, the problem is that "Battle of Kungrat" returns zero hits on Google (including Books). In fact, there's no Wikipedia on either Kungrat, Oydustbiy (first belligerent) or Muhammad Yakub (second belligerent). Pichpich (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to support notability. There were zero hits on Google Scholar and Google Books. I was able to confirm only that there is a Kungrat in Uzbekistan but not the occurrence of a battle there on the date specified. I did not see evidence of an alternate spelling, but absent evidence of one turning up additional information, fails Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (events). Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, I also failed to find anything that would support this article or that the battle even happened. --hroest 18:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m fed up with made-up or wildly exaggerated Indian battles. Mccapra (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found the original source (or a clone of the original source) for the article here: [9]. Assuming the website is legitimate (whether or not it can be counted on to accurately represent specific facts), its existence suggests that the event is both real and notable, though it's possible this all ultimately comes from a citogenesis incident on Russian Wikipedia. I've tried a few different options for romanizing Ойдустбий and gotten nowhere. So: sources may exist, but there's currently no sign of any good ones - delete. -- asilvering (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a single hit for Ойдустбий in Google Scholar that appears to at least mention Oydustbiy, but it’s discussing a campaign that started in 1809, so I don’t know if it’s the same campaign. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35163804 That was literally the only source I found and I can’t access the full text. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete unsourced nonsense. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also frustrated by this nonsense. We spend more time on them than the creator obviously did. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references or sources support this article's notability. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No available sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really a no-brainer. I agree wholeheartedly with Mccapra.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open Configuration and Management Layer

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

I did a search and mostly just found copies of this article so doubt it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, did a search and all I could find (like Chidgk1) was copies of the text from the Wikipedia page. Lewcm (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 16:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched through Google Scholar and Google Books, but found a couple of mentions—not enough for even an understanding of what it is. SWinxy (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zougla

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

I searched and found other stuff like restaurants. If it was notable I would have thought there would have been a Greek article Chidgk1 (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Greek TV show that no longer airs, of little, if any, notability, which it lacked even when on the air. Nothing of significance. -The Gnome (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 16:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cuthbert School

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

I did a search and it does not seem to be particularly notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found a source from the University System of Georgia and updated the article with it. I was not able to find other sources mentioning this building. 199.192.65.251 (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and GEO; Nothing meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Just because it existed doesn't make it notable. // Timothy :: talk 08:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says:
Sources
1. "Cuthbert School Superintendent, Progressive Educator and Leader, Celebrates Eighth Anniversary". Ledger-Enquirer. 1937-11-20. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27 – via Newspapers.com.
2. "Cuthbert School Is At Work Again: Large Enrollment — Andrew College Will Open Next Week". Ledger-Enquirer. 1912-09-11. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27 – via Newspapers.com.
3. "Cuthbert High School Students Are Victors In State Competitions". Ledger-Enquirer. 1938-05-13. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27 – via Newspapers.com.
4. "Cuthbert High Graduation Set May 30". The Telegraph. 1960-05-25. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27 – via Newspapers.com.
5. "School Raised To Grade Of "A"". The Macon News. 1924-12-13. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27 – via Newspapers.com.
6. "Cuthbert School To Produce Play". The Atlanta Constitution. 1924-09-17. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27 – via Newspapers.com.
7. Lindsey, Betty Sue (1960-02-28). "Cuthbert School News". The Columbus Ledger. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27 – via Newspapers.com.
8. "Cuthbert FHA, FFA Hold Annual Event With Parents". The Telegraph. 1958-03-23. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27 – via Newspapers.com.
9. "Cuthbert School Paper Off Press". The Telegraph. 1937-03-02. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27 – via Newspapers.com.
10. "Cuthbert High Wins Two From Shellman". The Telegraph. 1945-02-04. Archived from the original on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.
11. "Cuthbert High Rites Are Scheduled May 31". The Telegraph. 1948-05-25. Archived from the original on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.
12. "Winners Listed In Science Fair At Cuthbert High". The Telegraph. 1961-05-25. Archived from the original on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.
13. "Cuthbert HIgh Quintet Meets Eunfaula Tuesday". Ledger-Enquirer. 1951-02-12. Archived from the original on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes that the school's sports teams are known as the "Cutherbert High Purple Hurricanes".
14. "Cuthbert, 16; Edison, 9". The Telegraph. 1911-05-14. Archived from the original on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.
15. "Cuthbert High Program Held: Rev. J. S. Cook of Americus Delivers Commencement Address". Ledger-Enquirer. 1940-06-02. Archived from the original on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28 – via Newspapers.com.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cuthbert School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Additional sources added. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources cited by Cunard do not establish notability: as coverage of local events, brief announcements and routine coverage, they are trivial coverage, not significant coverage. The sources establish that it existed, but that does not make it notable WP:ORGSIG The school does not pass WP:NSCHOOL. . Hmee2 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete there really isnt anything here to write an article about. The listed articles do not describe the school in any detail. --hroest 18:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding "The listed articles do not describe the school in any detail", this is incorrect. The 13 May 1938 article discusses how the Cuthbert School's Purple Tidings school newspaper was "awarded a certificate of distinction by the Georgia Scholastic Press Association in Athens to denote outstanding excellence in journalistic work and ideals among high schools from all over the state". The article notes, "The paper, only commendation from John Drewry, two years old, recently received director of the Henry W. Grady School of Journalism at the University of Georgia, for its progressive stream-line makeup and policies."
The 13 December 1924 article discusses how the Southern College Conference rated the school as an "A" grade high school. The 23 March 1958 article discusses Cuthbert High School's annual Parent-Daughter, Parent-Son banquet in very extensive detail. The 20 November 1937 article notes that the school did not have any students who "failed in college" in the last eight years since the school superintendent joined. The article notes that the school "added departments of public school music, of public school speech and a school newspaper" in the last eight years. The article notes that the school's newspaper The Purple Tidings was founded a year ago. The article discusses the running of the newspaper.
Numerous articles discuss the school's graduations and sports games. This is sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says it is sufficient for a non-profit school to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
The school was covered in reliable sources in the decades spanning the 1910s and the 1960s. This is sustained coverage of the school.
Cunard (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above is SIGCOV. It is ROUTINE normal news, it doesn't show notability. // Timothy :: talk 08:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says a non-profit school is notable if it meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Neither guideline requires a school to have received significant coverage beyond "ROUTINE normal news". Cunard (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSky Charter School

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

Does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Minnesota. AllyD (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Gtgamer79 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says:
Sources
1. Articles from the St. Paul Pioneer Press:
  1. Magan, Christopher (2013-04-27). "BlueSky Online school rebounding after state effort to shut it down". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
    The article notes: "The school is for grades seven through 12. It serves mostly at-risk students who don’t fit into typical school environments, but it also has accelerated learners. ... Enrollment at the school is expected to top 400 next year. That’s a 40 percent increase from last fall, but far from the nearly 700 students who attended the school before trouble began with the state Department of Education. The department started investigating BlueSky in 2009 after receiving complaints that the school was not meeting state curriculum standards. The inquiry dragged on, and the state tried repeatedly to close the school. The charter spent $200,000 defending itself. In the end, Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius agreed with an administrative law judge that there was not enough evidence to close the school."
  2. Magan, Christopher (2011-11-21). "Judge: State should stop efforts to close BlueSky Online charter school". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  3. Miranda, Maricella (2011-04-07). "BlueSky charter school disputes Education Department's findings". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  4. Magan, Christopher (2011-12-18). "Education commissioner to decide fate of BlueSky charter school". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  5. Magan, Christohper (2011-11-16). "BlueSky charter school approves $200,000 in settlement payout". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  6. Koumpilova, Mila (2010-11-30). "Online BlueSky Charter School dodges state fines, for now". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  7. Koumpilova, Mila (2011-05-12). "West St. Paul's BlueSky Online charter school says it will fight on". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  8. Magan, Christopher (2011-11-21). "BlueSky online school encouraged by ruling". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  9. Koumpilova, Mila (2010-12-31). "BlueSky Charter School of West St. Paul still under state scrutiny". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  10. Magan, Christopher (2011-12-21). "Minnesota education commissioner weighs BlueSky charter school's fate". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  11. Magan, Christopher (2011-12-21). "Arguments heard by education commissioner on BlueSky investigation". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  12. Koumpilova, Mila (2011-01-28). "Minnesota Education Department improperly releases transcripts from online charter school". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  13. Koumpilova, Mila (2011-04-21). "State moves to close West St. Paul-based charter school". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
2. Articles from the Star Tribune:
  1. Patterson, Gregory A. (2008-12-03). "BlueSky Charter School: Staying in school -- online". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  2. Lemagie, Sarah (2011-04-21). "State decides to close BlueSky Online School". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  3. Lemagie, Sarah (2011-03-07). "State wants online charter school shut down". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  4. Lemagie, Sarah (2010-09-12). "E-school in trouble over easy diplomas: State says BlueSky online school hasn't followed graduation requirements". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  5. Burnette II, Daarel (2010-11-09). "State tells online charter school to shape up or face fines". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  6. Lemagie, Sarah (2011-04-07). "BlueSky takes dispute to court". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  7. Zaman, Asad (2011-02-18). "Customizing Student Learning Through Online Education". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  8. Lemagie, Sarah (2011-04-05). "BlueSky overseer says it won't shut down school". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  9. Lemagie, Sarah (2011-03-22). "State to meet with BlueSky Online School's overseer". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  10. Lemagie, Sarah (2011-03-10). "Senate committee hears testimony on BlueSky from state, school". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  11. Estrada, Herón Márquez (2012-02-18). "State relents; online school to stay open". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  12. Estrada, Herón Márquez (2011-11-22). "BlueSky online school should stay open, judge recommends". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2011-11-24. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  13. Adler, Erin (2013-04-23). "South school briefs: BlueSky Online School earns accreditation". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  14. Lemagie, Sarah (2011-07-08). "BlueSky school may join regular district - West St. Paul would take on the troubled school and get its help starting online classes in return". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
3. Other articles:
  1. "State threatens sanctions against charter school". Post-Bulletin. 2010-11-03. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  2. "Charter school put on notice for violations". Jordan Independent. 2010-11-24. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow BlueSky Charter School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 15:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep the controversy around the school means that it passes WP:SIGCOV with almost 30 newspaper articles in some of the most circulated newspapers in the state. --hroest 18:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cunard's research shows a clear GNG pass. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of nuclear holocaust fiction

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

Mostly unreferenced, fails WP:NLIST/WP:IPC/WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Could redirect to Nuclear weapons in popular culture of which it is effectively a fork of anyway, just in a list format. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strikes me as an archetypal glorified category. Not seeing any benefits to having this information in article form, especially when it’s in two completely different formats like someone got bored halfway through constructing the page. Dronebogus (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Distinct enough genre, and the article itself being in different formats is not a reason to delete it. Categorisation is usually self-evident, so lack of sources isn't reason to delete. Jamezofchez (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The current content of Nuclear weapons in popular culture has little overlap with our list here. This list provides a navigation function. List allows for commentary, one of the advantages of lists, see in general WP:CLN. Most importantly, there are significant secondary sources discussing the thing as group: Full books: Nuclear holocausts: Atomic war in fiction, 1895-1984, The Nightmare Considered: Critical Essays on Nuclear War Literature. Science Fact and Science Fiction has paragraphs of discussion on p. 48-49 as part of the chapter "Atom Bomb". The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy has a dedicated entry "Nuclear War" in volume 2, p. 562-564. That should be sufficient to fullfill WP:NLIST, as we could easily write Nuclear holocaust in fiction as the companion article to our list here. In addition, many secondary sources dedicated to sub-topics exist, like Nuclear-War Themes in Soviet Science Fiction, Nuclear Holocaust in American Films, Nuclear fiction for children, etc. The fact that the formatting is not uniform within the article is unfortunate, but a typical issue that can be solved by normal editing and therefore not at all a reason for deletion. Daranios (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge properly to List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. I've reconsidered, contrary to what I originally thought, the "Cause" column at this target would allow for a merge without loss of collected information, if we agree to introduce the entry "War, nuclear" or some such (instead of only "War") and merge at least all blue-linked entries. While I still think our topic here fullfills WP:NLIST, merging to the parent topic list - which has somewhat better formatting place - avoids duplication and will make maintenance easier in the long run (and we no longer have to quibble about notability). Daranios (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios I think that's a reasonable solution, but I remain concerned, as always, about merging unreferenced content... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ps. The problem with the current list is that it classifies as nuclear holocaust any work in which nuclear war happened, even if it happened long ago and has relatively little impact on the work. We have Planet of the Apes, Star Trek: First Contact, Terminator, The Matrix, Battlestar Galactica, Dark Angel and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, among others... I very much doubt any RS classifies those works as related to nuclear holocaust/war/etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. This would be good to use to add a bunch of references: Nuclear Holocausts: Atomic War in Fiction. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: "I very much doubt any RS classifies those works as related to nuclear holocaust/war/etc." Randomly taking two of your examples: Planet of the Apes: [10]; Terminator: [11], [12]. So taking these two as a baseline, I have no problem of assuming in good faith that previous editors have used the primary sources (which are present) in a reasonable way, until I see evidence to the contrary. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Thanks for finding the sources, I encourage you do add them to the article if you haven't done so yet. I am happy to be proven wrong, if sources can rescue this content - it's win-win. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Yeah, why not. I've added them now. Daranios (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-recognized genre of fiction as characterized by the large number of entries on the list. If the nominating editor had a concern, perhaps they could have mentioned it in the article's talk page first for improvement before doing a drive-by shooting.MartinezMD (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As is par for the course when it comes to fiction lists, this is a poorly-sourced mess that hinders rather than helps proper encyclopaedic coverage of the topic at hand. I find the argument that the list serves a navigational purpose wholly unpersuasive; it seems exceedingly unlikely that anybody looking for e.g. the A Canticle for Leibowitz article would come to the List of nuclear holocaust fiction article in order to find it. It also obviously falls flat for the list entries that do not have articles to link to. I likewise find the argument that a benefit of a list is that we can add commentary unpersuasive—that's how we've ended up with a whole bunch of embarrassingly poor TV Tropes-style lists in the first place. I don't really understand how the editors arguing in favour of keeping the article think a "finished" version of this article would look. The Nuclear weapons in popular culture article is not exactly in great shape, but that at least has the potential to become a high-quality (or at minimum decent) article covering the topic. As far as lists go, this would also seem to be wholly redundant to List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, since a nuclear holocaust is a type of apocalypse. TompaDompa (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: I fully agree that someone looking for e.g. the A Canticle for Leibowitz would not go through here - if I am interested in a specific work and know the title I will just search it directly. The navigation help rather is for someone like "Leibowitz was for me, I wonder what other fiction there is featuring a world destroyed by nuclear holocaust?". Or "Nuclear holocaust gives me the facts, now I wonder where can I see or read this pictured in fiction?" The argument that providing short commentary in lists is an advantage does not originate with me, it's a consensus expressed in the form of being part of the WP:CLN guideline. Daranios (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not serving a navigational purpose then, it's serving as a catalogue or list of recommendations. An article that aids navigation helps you if you want to find a specific article, but don't know the title of the article you want. As for commentary being an advantage: I know the argument does not originate with you, but you presumably think it somehow applies to this article since you brought it up. I don't think it applies to this article, since adding commentary to lists like this ends up making the article worse rather than better. Not all topics lend themselves to lists—topics on fiction usually don't, and I don't see that this would be an exception. This is simply not a good way to cover a topic like this. And it's redundant to another list to boot. TompaDompa (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: "helps you if you want to find a specific article" - That would work, too, if there is indeed a sentence of summary there. Maybe that's a rare use, maybe not, but one put forward by WP:LISTPURP. "list of recommendations" - In the form of a value judgement, I'd say no, because the critereon we could apply is appearance in secondary sources/being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. In the form of, "If you want to know more, we have information for you here", yes. Be that as it may, your definition of navigation is not the only one for which lists on Wikipedia are meant for: WP:AOAL has right as it's first point "Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia." That's what I was describing. If this is a good way to approach this topic, I guess we can agree to disagree. As for the overlap with List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction (which incidentally also has a column for adding commentary), see below. Daranios (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exploratory browsing and navigation are completely different things. If exploratory browsing was what you meant, then fair enough, but that's not a reason to have a list article as opposed to a proper prose article; exploratory browsing is an advantage of lists as compared to categories. Prose articles on fiction-related topics are way better for exploratory browsing than lists are except for in a small number of specific circumstances (mainly when the connection between entries is strong and the list can be made complete, such as List of James Bond novels and short stories). And of course this list is self-evidently not even constructed to serve that purpose, because it includes a bunch of WP:REDLINKS. This list is a hobby project, a TV Tropes-style list without much in the way of encyclopaedic merit. List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction is far from being even decent in terms of quality, but this list is entirely redundant to it and really has no valid raison d'être. TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: More of a general question out of this specific reasoning: WP:LISTPURP says "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." This would be the case for more or less all lists mirroring reasonable categories. Aside from the additional WP:LISTN requirement, you stated that still "Not all topics lend themselves to lists". Is there any guidance on which topics lend themselves to lists then, or is this rather a matter of opinion, i.e. decided through local consensus? Daranios (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I entirely understand the question, but most topics don't lend themselves to lists. Wikipedia prefers prose, see e.g. WP:PROSE. There is WP:SALAT and WP:NOT for further guidance in general. TompaDompa (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daranios' analysis demonstrates that the topic meets GNG, and a sensible, appropriate list can be made and maintained through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nom. raises three policy issues where this fails. Daranios addresses WP:NLIST and demonstrates that notable lists similar to this are possible, but inadevrtently shows why this list really does fail on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is a list of short and long fiction, music, comics, animation, games, films and television on the topic of nuclear holocaust, including notable and non notable examples. It is the very definition of indiscriminate, and as Daranios has shown, notable lists are more carefully drawn in practice, being, for instance, nuclear war themese in soviet fiction, or nuclear fiction for children. Note that even then, the first of those is only about written fiction, the second is about the subject in general and appears to make no attempt to be comprehensive. The third example restricts itself to films. Because this list is indisriminate it is also impossible to maintain. If kept it will remain an incomplete, unsourced and unhelpful list. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: So do I understand correctly that you would be fine with having separate lists for various genres (i.e. splitting it more or less according to the sections we now have)? As for "It is the very definition of indiscriminate", which of the four points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE do you actually think applies here? Now I can understand the goal to avoid a WP:TVTROPES-like listing of all instances of nuclear holocaust appearing in fiction, but that can easily be solved by limiting this to blue links in keeping with the navigational nature of the list. That way it is not an indiscriminate (in the normal language sense) list, it is limited to what entries we have on Wikipedia. I personally think we should additionally include treatments which are not notable enough to have their own article if they can be supported by secondary sources in keeping with WP:ATD-M. And that's also my dividing line where may need secondary sources and where we don't. Daranios (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you understand correctly that I think some kind of list, based on suitable sources, is possible. But I also thought about what is required to bring this page to that, and we basically have WP:TNT, because:

The list needs to be written sources or films or whatever... WP:IPC is an essay, not policy, but having the list cover all media almost certainly fails it under WP:NLIST which saysOne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There is no evidence that this list, covering all media, is described as a group anywhere. Although the above evidence does not demonstrate this, I think it is very plausible that there are specific lists of, say, films on the subject of nuclear war. The problem with keeping this article is that we don't know which it is. It needs to be one thing and not all of them, and then a source describing that collection can be the basis of a list.
Even if we accepted the above, and deleted everything but one medium, we still have to rename the list per Xx236.
The list needs clear inclusion criteria. One key criterion is likely to be notability.

Note that the third issue there is cleanup, and as we are all aware, deletion is not for cleanup. Except WP:TNT. In this case we have a list that is so indiscriminate that any attempt to rectify jettisons most of its content (and we have no lead as to which content should be retained, an edit war seems baked in). More content is lost by restricting to notability, and the list also has to be taken through Requested Moves. The fiction content is much more fully covered in List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, which list is properly sourced. What is lost if we delete this? An unsourced list of information that is likely available elsewhere. This list should not exist in this form in WP Mainspace. I would, however, be content with "draftify" if anyone wanted to mine it for lists that are not WP:INDISCRIMINATE (summary only collection), and indeed WP:N and WP:GNGWikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no evidence that this list, covering all media, is described as a group anywhere." So what about The Nightmare Considered: Critical Essays on Nuclear War Literature, which claims to cover "a wide range of fiction, film, poetry and drama" (p. 2), Science Fact and Science Fiction and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy? And if notability would be used as a critereon, WP:TNT would not at all apply, because then only a fraction of the current content (lacking blue links) would need to be removed (or bolstered with secondary sources), while the majority would be kept. "summary only collection" does not apply then, because if a work of fiction has an article on Wikipedia, there have to be sources describing more than summary at the target article. The one serious argument I see against this list, also raised by TompaDompa is the overlap with List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, of which this is basically a sub-genre. The advantage of this list is that, well, we have a list for this sub-genre available. This is counterbalanced by the need to improve and maintain it. I have no serious objections against a merge with List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, but then we would likely loose this distinction between parent- and sub-topic. So I personally still slightly tend towards keep in the balance of those points. Daranios (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare Considered does not discuss the topic as a group or set. Does not evidence WP:NLIST. I can't see the text of page 2, but it is clearly talking about a genre of literature (so sans music, games etc) with no list, group or set, but with papers on some specific titles. The rest of my comments stand. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare Considered is also a collection of essays on various specific aspects of the topic, as opposed to a book on the overarching topic. The science fiction encyclopedias referenced are certainly usable sources for the Nuclear weapons in popular culture article, but trying to apply them here is to my eye fitting a square peg in a round hole. TompaDompa (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, the name should be changed or sourced. The word Holocaust has its meaning and there are protests against similar uses.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236: Interesting, I did not think about that. You can see already from the titles I have listed above that "Nuclear holocaust" is indeed used by secondary sources. But changing the title to List of nuclear war fiction would be fine with me, both terms seem to appear (equally?) in sources, and if we can have a title without a controversy behind it, why not. Daranios (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236 @Daranios The issue here is the existence of the nuclear holocaust article. If the name has been criticized, that would be good to mention in that article. If it is considered very improper, a WP:RM could be started. Right now I don't think the article mentions any criticism of the term. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus and Xx236: I don't really know, but this paper is very interesting. It says that the "nuclear holocaust" is and has been quite common, but on p. 51 touches on the critcism of using the term holocaust loosely. And, sure, this discussion is relevant for the nuclear holocaust article and our list here. Daranios (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Maybe copy this subthread to the article's talk page? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Distinct enough genre, I agree some items should be removed, but that is not a deletion reason. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This genre does exist. Just discuss on the talk page what can be fixed with normal editing method. Dream Focus 12:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policy reasons for deletion are WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. How does the existence of a genre relate to these issues? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL I guess? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are secondary sources talking about this as a genre, then they are in effect talking about the works of fiction belonging to this genre "as a group or set", therefore fullfilling WP:NLIST. For such sources, see Science Fiction: A Very Short Introduction, p. 109-110, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Juli 1988, p. 24-27, Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia, p. 187-, Rumors of War and Infernal Machines. Daranios (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST clearly states Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Plenty of blue links, a legitimate categorization, it should keep. Dream Focus 20:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having plenty of blue links is not the same thing as fulfillingrecognized informational, navigation, or development purposes. I'd also note that the quoted passage seems descriptive rather then prescriptive. TompaDompa (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not navigational? And the lists also shows far more information than a category could. Dream Focus 05:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refer you to the comments I made on the subject above. TompaDompa (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets CLN/AOAL // Timothy :: talk 21:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 23:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wird

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

Only one match other than the main topic (Wird (Sufism)), and that's the radio station WIRD, so WP:TWODABS applies, and Wird (Sufism) should be moved here. The other entry is a partial match closely related to the main topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Qwv (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The General Reference

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

No indication of notability for this webpage per WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. ... discospinster _talk 12:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United Kingdom. ... discospinster _talk 12:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero independent sources, and no real claim of notability. - MrOllie (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources that show WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2023 Indian Premier League. This may be undone when we get CLOSE to the actual match, of course. But redirect for now. Courcelles (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Indian Premier League Final

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

Contested redirect - currently only source is the schedule announcement. Not enough in-depth coverage to show that it is notable. Probably should be a redirect or draftified, but that is no longer an option, since the redirect was contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as way WP:TOOSOON, almost no information known about it, as the main tournament hasn't started yet. Separate article is not needed until a few days beforehand, when the teams are known. Also, looking at the account names, it seems clear that the person reverting the redirect is a WP:SOCK of the article creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Restore the redirect, way too soon currently for an article on exist on the final, especially as the tournament hasn't even started yet. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above, way too soon. Content first then article, not article then content. Nigej (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL, an article on a future event is appropriateif the event is notable and almost certain to take place. (Y based on coverage of the schedule already present in article) and ifthe subject matter [is] of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. (Y based on notability of 2022 Championship game article). Frank Anchor 17:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as per Joseph2302 literally no information on article to be on mainspace. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 09:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Merlion Cup. Courcelles (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Merlion Cup

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

Contested redirect - zero sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Singapore. Qwv (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google search indicates that the tournament was covered among the participating nations' media. Have added sources as well. – robertsky (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merlion Cup, don't think it needs a separate article. Giant Snowman 19:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merlion Cup, fails WP:GNG

Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 01:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Robertsky. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merlon Cup per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be a separate entry, it should be combined with the Merlion Cup, and if it's a separate entry it should have something to offer, but I don't see it here.--Caiyayu (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2023 Women's Premier League (cricket). Courcelles (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Women's Premier League Final

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

Contested redirect - zero in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Cricket, and India. Qwv (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to 2023 Women's Premier League (cricket)#Final. This article does not demonstrate why a separate article is warranted, it has no additional encyclopedic text explaining the match, it just simply repeats the roads to the final that's already in the main WPL season article. A paragraph summarising the events in the final in the parent article would suffice for content, there is absolutely no need for a separate article for the final. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And also worth noting that this was created by a now blocked editor, redirected, and the redirection was reversed by an obvious WP:SOCK of the blocked creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Women's Premier League (cricket)#Final Per Joseph2302, some of the information here can be merged, but not enough differing content for a standalone article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Women's Premier League (cricket)#Final with no prejudice against a future article being created if the content justifies it. At the moment this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, but if the main article were fleshed out enough, then it is likely that both articles could be justified. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have articles for all the finals of Indian Premier League, the same tournament played by men. 2022 Indian Premier League Final is just one among them. A quick Google search is showing plenty of coverage for this event. Deleting this would be WP:BIAS. Thilsebatti (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE, also the issue is whether a WP:SPLIT is needed for a separate article on a final or not. Which for the record, I don't think we need one for men's IPL final either, a couple of paragraphs in the main season IPL and WPL articles would be sufficient in both cases. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of One Piece characters. Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaidou

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

Contested redirect. Zero real-world notability, delete as per WP:NOTPLOT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless this is rewritten. Reception currently is a joke (n-th position on some listicles and like). Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This was being used as a redirect to List of One Piece characters for years until recently, and given the terrible sourcing in the article and the lack of any real coverage in reliable sources upon searching, that should be restored. Rorshacma (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to character page. Dronebogus (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to character page. As a fan of One Piece, whoever is making article pages for these characters should be ashamed of themselves for not even attempting to make decent pages. SimonLagann (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Evolution

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

Promotional article. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. Nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 09:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source table:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Turkey, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, this started as a non-profit back in the day but has grown into something more since then (the wording on their own website is super unclear as to what it exactly is). According to this, it was still just a student organization back in 2015. The thesis in ref 5 is accessible via the government thesis site [13]. Pages 110–127 of it are specifically about Evrim Ağacı. There is some general information but independent conclusions are present towards the end. Other than that nothing in the article strikes me as a good source, so I'd agree with the assessment above. Some additional sources are present at the Turkish AfD from a few years back, where it was kept. Among them was this RS from 2014 about a conference they organized and that's pretty much the only source that deserves to be mentioned here; the rest are either small mentions, non-RS sources or just not independent. I found this 2 sentence piece about the website being blocked by the National Library, which solely relies on a tweet made by them. There is this RS which reads a bit promotional. Others are just reciting a scientific passage from the website ("According to Evrim Ağacı..."). I'm quite undecided on this one. ~Styyx^Talk? 16:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tree of Evolution is the perfect name, they certainly have branched and evolved. // Timothy :: talk 17:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 11:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure what this "thing" is either, it's tagged as a think tank, but reads like it's a social club at a university. I can't find sourcing for whatever it is; if I can't tell what it is after reading the article, it's not needing an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this site isn't a RS [14], explains this group is an online learning portal. Very confusing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete social club of some sort. Not notable at this point. Aintabli (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Key-sung Cho

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Also I don't think his academic career meets WP:PROF. Fails WP:BIO more generally. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bilateral relations, Argentina, Guatemala, and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think I've now seen dozens of these AFDs about ambassadors. It used to be articles about football players and then ghost towns in Arizona and now it's cleaning house of ambassador articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've been able to find several mentions of his career as an ambassador through a Google Books search; it seems that he played a fairly important role in encouraging South Korean investment in Guatemala while he was ambassador there in the late 1980s. I don't have time to add the sources right now, but I'll work on improving the article as soon as I can. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 11:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Yahya

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

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is some coverage of him for leaving the field during a match in July 2022, including this, but I was unable to establish that he has received WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Duffy

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources in the article, [15] is a database profile on Soccerway, [16] is a database profile, [17] is a small match report, [18] and [19] are routine transfer reports, [20] is a match report. I was unable to find anything significant during a search, only routine transfer reports and trivial mentions. Alvaldi (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and England. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - half-decent analysis of the sources in the article, no effort to find anything not in the article, such as this and this, amongst others. There's enough coverage to justify an article. Giant Snowman 18:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did make a honest effort to search for other sources and actually came across the lincoln.vitalfootball.co.uk one, but the single paragraph that covers him is in my humble opinion not significant enough as it basically states he has been injured, trains well and we might see him on the field in the future. I also do have my doubts on the sites reliability as it states that it is an independent fans network and it seems anyone can send in an article (not sure its the case here, the author seems to be a regular). I didn't come across the one from punditarena.com though and while it is probably the best source so far, it is still only three short paragraphs and what we can write from it is that he comes from Shamrock Rovers' academy, moved to Premier Division club UCD and has played well there. Sorry to say, but not enough to convince me. Alvaldi (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per references added by GiantSnowman, which each contain several sentences of independent coverage. Not a clear pass of WP:GNG, but a pass nonetheless. Frank Anchor 19:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Also he is young player with ongoing career in fully pro EFL League One, which receives lots of media coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just passes WP:BASIC in my view. Just barely. Govvy (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added two sources. He passes WP:GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you added are routine transfer pieces. Giant Snowman 18:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Vital Lincoln City" source is a fan blog run by someone who used to run a Lincoln City booster club and who doesn't appear to have any relevant credentials. Not an RS or independent. Pundit Arena describes itself as "a sports media platform that provides aspiring journalists and highly articulate fans with an audience to showcase their work. If you are an aspiring writer, forget trying to start a blog, you can create a name and a brand for yourself on Pundit Arena." It does claim to have an "in-house team of established sports writers and editors", and the author of the Duffy piece does have a journalism degree. However, even if it's reliable this source is just three sentences in a listicle with almost zero encyclopedic information. This is not a GNG pass. JoelleJay (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Article fails WP:GNG; online coverage is routine/trivial (match reports and transfer announcements that contain little more than a sentence about Duffy). However, once he plays a bit in League One, I suspect a GNG pass is plausible so sending to draft makes sense here. Jogurney (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG with recent coverage that's added.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? JoelleJay (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moammel Abdul-Ridha

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

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Didn't find anything of significance about him. Alvaldi (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumar Almadjed

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

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The best I found was this, mostly an interview but has some prose in it. The rest I found were interviews and routine stuff. Happy to reconsider if someone has better luck in finding something significant. Alvaldi (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found 10+ articles about him from hd.se here, as well as [21], [22],[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], and [29], among many many more Swedish sources. Clearly significant figure in Swedish league football with ongoing career in fully pro Allsvenskan, which receives lots of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As search in Mediearkivet, the dominating Swedish newspaper archive from the last decades, gives 1128 hits when searching for his name. Most of these are trivial mentions from match reports, but there seems to be plenty of real articles as well, not just interviews. I'll see if I can find the time to take a proper look; it's a time-consuming effort due to the number of articles. /Julle (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG as per significant sources above.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV is sufficient to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY requirements for inclusion under WP:NATHLETE. The nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT, therefore justifying a standalone article per WP:NATHLETE. I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, meeting notability requirements for athletes. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE are met. Additionally, there is plenty of SIGCOV to demonstrate the subject’s notability in a manner that satisfies the relevant guidelines for the subject. I would be more likely to push for deletion if the subject weren’t notable or if coverage was of a WP:ROUTINE/WP:TRIVIAL nature failing to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NATHLETE, but this simply isn’t the case because reliable independent sources effectively establish the subject’s WP:NOTABILITY. The case for deletion would be stronger if notability and significant coverage requirements weren’t satisfied. However, since they are satisfied, the stronger case to be made here is that for inclusion. For these reasons, keeping the article is the appropriate course of action. Deletion rationales pointing to a lack of RS SIGCOV don’t have much weight in this case, since the subject does have sufficient coverage of a significant nature by independent WP:RS. I will also point out that the subject meets WP:GNG requirements per WP:NATHLETE, as demonstrated by the available reliable sources which establish WP:NOTABILITY. Since all of these conditions are met, the article should be kept. Deletion would be more appropriate for an article on a subject without demonstrable notability via lack of adequate WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Due to this subject’s notability, however, the article should not be considered eligible for deletion. Also, the nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT (i.e. this justifies a standalone article). I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, removing any concerns otherwise. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG are met. Additionally, the amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV also meets WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY requirements and satisfies WP:NATHLETE. The nature of coverage also passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold as well, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates that the subject is notable, therefore justifying a standalone article per WP:NATHLETE. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the actual fuck. JoelleJay (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sources linked above (that aren't premium content) are interviews, and the meager independent commentary within them is mostly just routine transfer news. What do the paywalled articles say? JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough non-interview prose in the source provided by Alvaldi and some of the ones provided Das osmnezz to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 14:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hassan Ahmed

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

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Tried searching in Danish sources but didn't find anything substantial. Alvaldi (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanpur Government Girls High School

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

Restored prod. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PRODed this because searches in English and Bengali found no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, only one brief mention.[30] I couldn't identify a good merge/redirect target, but am open to suggestions. If an editor would like the page userfied or draftified while they hunt for sources, I would be fine with that, but unless it can be shown to meet WP:NSCHOOL, it should not be in main space. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No citations or relevancy on Wiki platform.--Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mohanpur Upazila. PamD 14:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the single source is the school's official website, which Google translate converts into this which seems adequate evidence of the school's existence, and as there are only two government high schools in the Upazila it is quite reasonable to name this one at Mohanpur_Upazila#Education and redirect to it. PamD 14:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 36 high schools in the upazila. At the secondary level (unlike at the university level), being a "government" school is not a particular mark of distinction. "Non-government" schools, despite the name, are financed nearly entirely by the government (90% of teacher salaries, and grants for facilities repairs). The two categories of school follow the same curriculum, use the same textbooks, take the same standardized exams, and mostly charge the same amount in fees. According to one source, "Parents mainly send their children to private schools due to (perceived) low-quality ... at government schools". So the argument that this school should be named in the upazila article because it's one of only two government high schools in the locality is unconvincing, and attributes too much significance to this school. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV, database listings, some ROUTINE the type all schools have, but no SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 21:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mesen Selekta

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC Bexaendos (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 06:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project K (film)

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

This is an unreleased film. There is nothing in this article that shows significant coverage of production of the film, only run-of-the-mill reports of rumors, development (director, producer), cast members, filming, etc that is written about every unreleased film. Unreleased films are notable only if the production itself is notable. Recommend moving to Draft: space where it can continue to be developed and when the film is released, it can be submitted for review for moving to mainspace. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 01:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 01:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: By using the DIY Arri Alexa camera for shooting the film became the first such Indian/Telugu cinema movie to be shot with that new tech. As such WP:NFIC #1 the filmis a milestone in the development of film art within the scope of Telugu cinema and thus have a notable production accordingly to WP:NFF — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per DaxServer. Film passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG. --SuperSharanya (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:NFF as there are substantial sources showing the film is in production. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DaxServer. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note SuperSharanya above is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (author) The film has received significant coverage from independent sources consistently since its production has begun in July 2021. Meets NFF criteria for future films. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a major production. Satisfies NFF criteria. Reo kwon (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Film has sourced coverage to show it meetsWP:NFF. Filming has started and the depth of coverage of the production is enough to meet notability criteria. Ravensfire (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Baylor

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

I don't see how Walker Baylor is notable. My redirect to his son Robert Emmett Bledsoe Baylor was reverted, so AfD can decide. Apart from the obituary, all sources seem to refer to him as "the father of", not about him personally, and just spend one line on him: e.g. this book, this book, or this book. Even this book, a detailed account of his military unit, gives only some small bits of information, and doesn't support the claim that he was a major of the unit (but only a captain). As it is a self-published book (authorhouse.com), it doesn't really count as a reliable source anyway. Fram (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Kentucky. Fram (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see what is notable about this chap. He served in a war as a junior officer and was wounded. No high rank, no high-level decorations, no key role in a battle or contribution to military operational art etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable for commanding Washington's Life Guard at either Germantown or Brandywine, where he was wounded while holding the colors. This is mentioned in all the sources that speak of him. I've found one obituary written in the year of his death, which focusses solely on the subject. There are probably others, just not on Newspapers.com. Also, this history of the Baylor family has information on the two likenesses of him which are known to exist and about which more may have been written. One of them was featured in a recent museum exhibition. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- " One of them was featured in a recent museum exhibition"? That's not supported by that source, any other evidence for this? "Probably others" and "more may have been written" is speculation, not something we can base an AfD on, and it seems not very likely that these family portraits have been the subject of much attention anyway. The claim that he was a major is only sourced to an inscription on a photograph it seems. We don't know where he was wounded, never mind while supposedly "holding the colors" (source?), and "this" is not "mentioned in all the sources that speak of him", neither the sources I gave above nor the family history or the Virginia Magazine[31] mention him commanding the Life Guard, and this pdf which mentions his wound doesn't mention the Life Guards, Washington or "holding the colors" either. So it is rather strange that the sources which briefly mention him, don't mention the one thing he is supposedly notable for. Fram (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Internet archive shows multiple references to him commanding the life guards. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - A "632" results list of many copyright registration cards, real estate tax list archives, ... Not helpful. Fram (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe scroll more than twice, and you'll see what else is there. Also, I've added information on the subject's life in Kentucky after the war from several sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also this source, which besides describing some of his activities in Kentucky, also mentions another obituary in the Kentucky Gazette "with a short sketch of his revolutionary War services as head of a troop of cavalry." 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peacemaker and Hawkeye, at least from a military perspective. Intothat darkness 15:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not see how he is notable for stand-alone article. Not major medals and states, he "may have" obtained the rank of Major (so not a General officer). Too much speculation. Kierzek (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- None of his activities seems to me to be quite enough to be notable. Only a captain; a local judge; a member of the electoral college. I am not saying that any of it is not true, just NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately, as I found the article interesting. Even if WP:NSOLDIER hadn't been deprecated, they would not have passed that, and there's simply not enough in-depth coverage about them to meet WP:GNG. Fram's source assessment is spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 14:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Boardwalk (upcoming film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFF. A tweet claims this film is in post-production, but it is an unreliable source. There is no reliable source to indicate that it has reached the threshold equivalent to principal photography, that is, that the bulk of the budgeting is committed. There is no source confirming pre-production. The sources for who is writing songs is mere mentions. There is no secondary source commentary on this future film to meet the WP:GNG and bypass WP:NFF. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On nominating, I failed to check there was a recent AfD. It was closed by User:Randykitty: “ The result was no consensus. A possible redirect/merge elsewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)”.[reply]

Replying to that close, this film is not a film, it is a future film in development hell with tweets attempting to give it credence. This is not material that can be merged elsewhere. A redirect to a page that mentions failed films is not a good redirect, because that page would not describe this non-film. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What information there is belongs at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10551654/, and none of it is reliable enough for Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. As the previous AfD was "no consensus" with relatively sparse participation, I have no problem with another AfD a month later. As a courtesy, you might ping the participants in the previous discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Randykitty.
The prior participants from AfD1 (copying from https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Under_the_Boardwalk_(upcoming_film)) were:
1. User:MikeAllen
2. Special:Contributions/69.165.146.227
3. User:Joyous!
4. User:MrSchimpf
5. User:Randykitty
6. User:Patar knight
7. User:NYC Guru
8. User:Oaktree b
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article about a future film for which reliable sources don't say that it has entered into the equivalent of principal photography, and the production of which does not meet GNG anyway—per nom. There are strong reasons to delete, and the no consensus AfD failed to deliver.—Alalch E. 08:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftily this article, because it needs multiple reliable citations.

CastJared (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are mostly not reliable, and of the ones that should be reliable, they are wrong because the information contained changed, it was speculative/intended future and then didn’t happen. It’s called Development hell. Sources and all, it’s worthless. If it comes out of development hell, new sources are needed. Probably, the cast will be all different. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak draftify or weak redirect to Paramount Animation for the time being, or delete later on if production goes no further, per WP:NFILM. It's a major-studio animated feature project, and we all know where a good deal of them have ended up over the decades. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still a delete, nothing seems to have changed on the status of the film in the last month; film might never happen. Also, this isn't a major film for the studio, it appears to be a minor film, so we likely won't see any further news unless it gets put back into production again.Oaktree b (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a four hour biblical epic; this might be pushed out to a streaming service instead or go straight to DVD, was the point I'm trying to make. Oaktree b (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This time Delete for same reason as in the previous AfD. The article can be easily recreated if significant news on production is released. Hopefully that time, the page won't be sourced to the US Copyright Office, an archived Paramount site, John Debney's personal website and Twitter. Mike Allen 13:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: Fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG SuperSharanya (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Draftify per WP:NFF. Please do not delete outright, this will eventually be moved to the mainspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT applies. None of the current information is correct. If is is resurrected, every detail might be different, and will certainly need all new sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note SuperSharanya above is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy film notability guidelines, as discussed above, or general notability guideline. If the sources are questionable, and they are, then the work that has been done has not been useful and there is no point to draftification. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - There actually have been no updates on the film since December 2022. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion has boiled down to the choices of keeping the article in Main namespace or draftifying it to Draft namespace. After two full relistings, no consensus has ensued. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jahzara Claxton

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some sources exist but not enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below sources. Giant Snowman 19:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search provided these sources about this two-sport athlete. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Even has a foreign article about her here. 10. Updated article with these and other sources - previous revision to current. Courtesy ping to @GiantSnowman: as requested above. Prominent figure in St Kitts sports, receiving a great deal of coverage with various news articles and a television appearance. Very good candidate for meeting Wikipedia:YOUNGATH. (PS you AfD'ed her on her birthday lol) RedPatch (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage above.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Weak keep. Of the above sources, #1 is by a Social media coach and consultant, #5 is written by the Minister of Sport on a Government run St. Kitts Nevis Information Service (SKINS), #6 and #7 are the same announcement from SKINS and #9 is an interview (PRIMARY). The rest might look good on the surface but when I go through the sources the feel rather thin. They are also from a span of 11 months so maybe WP:TOOSOON applies. Alvaldi (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I came to a similar conclusion when reviewing these sources. The tour reception pieces are largely primary, e.g.Samal Duggins – the Minister of Agriculture of St Kitts and Nevis, felt extremely proud while welcoming Jahzara Claxton; the reports on the minister's financial contribution are almost entirely quotes/describing what someone said/repeating stats from a non-independent source without analysis; and the pieces on her call-up to the U19 cricket team are also deficient (the one that includes the opinion statementShe is an exceptional sports lady, and we salute her certainly cannot be considered independent). For YOUNGATH subjects local sources (and I don't see how newspapers from a community of <50k and ~100 mi² -- roughly equivalent in population and area to Casa Grande, Arizona -- can be considered anything other than "local") are almost always excluded from notability consideration; this leaves just the Guatemalan article, which is pretty barebones and mostly in the context of a match recap. I would definitely support draftifying until we see whether her performance on the West Indies women's U19 T20 squad garners more diverse coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After giving it some thought, I'm switching to Draftify. It is just to soon at the moment. Alvaldi (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the last two comments, I'm relisting to determine whether this article should be Kept or Draftified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Draftify - I don't believe there is SIGCOV of her football exploits, but perhaps there is something from her time in cricket. As noted above, there is some coverage of her selection to the West Indies' under-19 cricket team, but none of it looks in-depth to me. Maybe someone that follows cricket might have a better read? Jogurney (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Updating. Jogurney (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Per the discussion above. JoelleJay (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per RedPatch and Ortizesp. WP:HEY also applies here. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep per @RedPatch:~~ MetricMaster (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am more swayed by the keep arguments over the draftify. StickyWicket (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disregarding the blocked sockpuppet comment, the first relist doesn't show a change in consensus one way or the other. Hopefully relisting it again will help shape consensus towards a result.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FBC Třinec

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

Notability has not been proved. An insignificant club that does not play a professional competition. The page has already been speedy deleted once (17 December 2022) and has now been restored with the same scope and content as before. FromCzech (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly not material for CSD and previous speedy deletion is not an argument for deletion now. I'd say that the original creator may have COI problem, as his username contains name of a village close to Třinec. Maybe a player or someone affiliated to the club. They don't play on the highest level of the sport in the Czech Republic and reliable and independent coverage outside of the club or floorball scene is non-existent, from what I've found. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would go so far as to say it should be a speedy delete, since it was already removed 3 months ago. Lindsey40186 (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Canales

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

Doesn't meet the old WP:NFOOTY guidelines as doesn't appear to have played in a professional league. Doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 23:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~American football~~, New Zealand, and Chile. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 23:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: removed American Football sort category as it does not apply to this subject. Frank Anchor 16:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is a dubious one. Santiago Morning is a professional team playing in the Chilean second league which is surprisingly or annoyingly named Primera B, suggesting it is better than it is. FWIW that is a professional league. I don't think he is a notable player though but passes barely our standards. --Bedivere (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, he does not. 'Our standards' are WP:GNG, it doesn't matter about the level of play. Giant Snowman 15:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Bdivere. @GiantSnowman:, I found [32], [33], [34], and [35] al of which go into his background, among many more sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First source looks OK, the rest less so. Not enough I don't think. Giant Snowman 15:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG is not met. 1 is an interview in local news with little secondary content N. 2 is a trivial sentence prepending a quote from him N. 3 is from the same paper as #2 and contains a passing mention + quote N. 4 is another one-sentence passing mention N. JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; online coverage is trivial/routine. Jogurney (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caaqil Dheryodhoobe

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

Scattered youtube videos are all there is about this individual. Non-notable military person? The article is poorly written and I can't tell what the individual being discussed has or hasn't done. Oaktree b (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a notable intelligent chief who, in one folk tale paid blood money in goats instead of camels, justifying through a haiku poem to say what 2 traits goats have with men, horses, camels and cows. Abshir55 (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a footnote source mentioning "the wise caaqil dheryodhoobe" in a passage mentioning garaad wiilwaal where both are known legends? The source itself is a western source that even studied from somali government stories? There are alot more stories and examples i can add in the page on the mans life by translating the links from laashin.com and himilonetwork.com Abshir55 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Buick

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google web search returns Wikipedia mirrors, and Buick dealers in towns named "Glen". Book search (and the refs in the article) only give trivial mentions of him. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sadharan Paath. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaj Paath

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

This article is a duplicate of the same topic of the Sadharan Paath article with an alternative title. I have merged the existing text to the Sadharan Paath article and request this one to be deleted as per Wikipedia rules. ThethPunjabi (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. ThethPunjabi (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sadharan Paath. Duplicate topic and no new information or sources. PopoDameron ⁠talk 18:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nusantara (TV program)

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

Fails notability. None of the references in the article address the subject, or are promotional material, so there is no SIGCOV. References themselves are not IS RS for notability. BEFORE showed promotional material, database listings. // Timothy :: talk 04:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Van der Merwe

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

Fails GNG and BIO. // Timothy :: talk 04:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete He built a dam and had a child that rode horses, is his claim for notability? Not even close to GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My grandchildren, one of them not two yet, also ride horses. Does that make me notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He didn't even build a dam, he just played "a big part in the building" of a dam. No notability at all. Athel cb (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Muller

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

Fails GNG and BIO. // Timothy :: talk 04:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even less notable than Piet van der Merwe! Athel cb (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Athel cb - There's no need to say something like that.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. ABHammad (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dammy Twitch

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

BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed interviews, lots of promos, and mentions in lists, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 03:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tenuous claim to notability as the videos are nominated, this person isn't. Rest of the sourcing is interviews and this appears PROMO.Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although the subject has worked with notable acts, he has not made a name for himself just yet. The first and third references are not independent of the subject and cannot be used to establish notability. It is definitely WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have a stand-alone article despite his 2017 start. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Big Time Rush (group)#Headlining. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Get Enough Tour

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

Declined G11, previously deleted under A7, G11. Google search reveals no independent coverage. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Time Rush (group)#Headlining. Fails WP:NTOUR, only source comes from the Big Time Rush website. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:A922:1A95:ACC3:345C (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. This article is pure promotion, not supported by any independent source I can find.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had nominated it for speedy deletion the first time, and Deb carried it out so I am wondering what Whpq saw about this that wasn't promotional given that it tells when tickets will be sold, gives the dates one can buy tickets for, and is only sourced to the band website. That said a redirect is probably a good idea. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G11 specifies that the article "would need to be fundamentally rewritten" to qualify. If you remove the single statement about ticket sales from the article, what is left is pretty standard material to find in a musical act tour article. Its terribly deficient sourcing is immaterial to G11. -- Whpq (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is where A7 comes in (for a yet-to-occur event that doesn't seem to have a claim to notability) when I had nominated it and Deb carried it out. I would respectfully submit that is a stricter reading of G11 than I would use, but that's your prerogative. Thanks for your reply. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to A7, a well-known band touring is itself a sufficient claim to clear A7. Note that the band has other tour articles. I realize I may interpret the speedy deletion criteria more strictly than others, but I do not believe that is out of line with policy. -- Whpq (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest it was. Just different. FWIW I've never heard of this band. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I can find tour announcement articles, but nothing that would establish the tour as notable at at this point in time. That may change once they've actually toured. -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Time Rush (group)#Headlining. For now this is nothing but an extended announcement, and the article falls afoul of WP:NOTADVERT. Since some of the group's past tours generated enough coverage to earn WP articles, that could possibly happen for this one, at which time the redirect can be reversed if warranted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Villalón

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

Doesn't meet the old WP:NFOOTY guidelines as doesn't appear to have played for any club when it may have been in the top professional league for that country. Doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 23:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, and Chile. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 23:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pet travel#Air travel. I'm closing this as a Redirect as ATD. I would have closed it as Merge but there is already a mention of Jack in this section of the article. Still if there is content that would be useful at Pet travel, it's there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (cat)

AfDs for this article:

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

PRODded by SilverTiger12 (talk · contribs) after prior AfD in November 2011, due to lack of lasting coverage for this 2011 incident. Previous AfD was closed as no consensus on November 22, less than a month after Jack was found and then euthanized, because it was not clear yet if there would be lasting coverage. There have been no improvements to this article since then, except for a source added in 2013 that devotes 3 short paragraphs to this incident in the context of many similar ones, and removing several unsourced or non-neutral paragraphs. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Events, Aviation, and New York. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge/Redirect per Cunard below. The coverage of this cat’s two month habitation of the airport and subsequent death was absolutely extensive. His disappearance spawned a Facebook campaign and various online, print, and television stories. The existing sourcing meets Wikipedia:GNG.

And while I’m concerned about the prior AfD’s heavy reliance on ongoing coverage when I’m not sure that’s required here under WP:NTEMP, we don’t necessarily need to address that, as I *do* see periodic coverage after. For example, this February 2017 article mentions Jack and an associated now defunct organization formed in response to what happened to him: https://www.cntraveler.com/story/is-your-pet-safe-flying-in-cargo; and this December 2022 article also mentions Jack: https://www.tripsavvy.com/british-airways-dog-air-travel-mishap-6951390. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Found another mention in 2015. https://www.yahoo.com/travel/felix-the-cat-found-after-two-weeks-spent-116663476477.html It appears his story gets repeated at least reasonably often when a pet-related airline incident occurs, which would tend to support a degree of ongoing coverage and notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am persuaded by Cunard’s analysis and change to merge/redirect.Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, and juste because he made the news for two months doesn't negate the fact that he has no long-term SIGCOV or GNG- passing mentions since then are just that, passing mentions. SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cat lost in airport isn't perhaps notable. That the article is barely more than one paragraph of text tells me this isn't notable. The cat didn't live at the airport for an extended period of time and this appears almost as a memorial page to the creature. I don't find any sigcov of the event or for the animal. Oaktree b (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Pet travel#Air travel, where the cat is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The duration of significant coverage is limited to sources published in 2011 when the cat had disappeared or had died. In sources published after 2011, the cat has received coverage in a few sentences or in a paragraph. To establish sustained notability to support a standalone article, I would have liked to seen significant coverage after 2011 such as a news article about Jack or significant coverage about the case in a book. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with selective merge per Cunard. The cat's disappearance was a story, but there's no evidence it was otherwise notable. Makes sense to include in the broader context, where it already is. Star Mississippi 13:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a cat lost in airport isn't notable encyclopedic topic. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:EVENTCRIT. // Timothy :: talk 12:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cunard. Does not pass WP:GNG. PopoDameron ⁠talk 18:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pet travel#Air travel, per Cunard. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pet travel#Air travel. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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