Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 5

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Joyous! Noise! 02:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Payne

Carol Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not meeting ACTOR, no sources found, nothing found in Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 5 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. Joyous! Noise! 02:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Koshka

Elena Koshka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable pornographic actress, no sources found for RS (only videos of her performances). Working in marketing and on webcam is non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 5 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Sesame Street Christmas

Once Upon a Sesame Street Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A single token source, no showing of notability, no SIGCOV. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:25, 5 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 04:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yohannes Mitchum

Yohannes Mitchum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 5 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small boat operations

Small boat operations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced page EggsAndCakey (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Striking sock of AFreshStart — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: that's fair enough, and I'm not surprised that there exists sufficient coverage to source an article. However, that is not an excuse to leave an entirely unsourced article in mainspace for another decade. As such, if the article is kept, I will wait a week or two for someone from among the Keep voters to take on some of the WP:BURDEN and add at least a modicum of these sources; and if that doesn't happen, I will redirect or stubbify. Policies before essays. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, and I would encourage you to help build the article as well. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, for what it's worth, the article is no longer unsourced. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject is notable and we do not delete based on the state of an article unless the article is in such bad spage that WP:TNT applies. The spirit of Wikipedia is that any editor can come across and article and provide improvements. That becomes a lot harder to do when there is no article to improve. Writing a new article is much more difficult than adding to an existing article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic is worthy of its own article, and it is now sufficiently sourced. There are also concerns about validating a sock nomination. I also agree that WP:TNT doesn’t apply to this article. Shawn Teller (talk) 21:01, 12 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paula method

Paula method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Just one person's theory with no supporting evidence. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   20:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bø, Kari; Hilde, Gunvor; Stær-Jensen, Jette; Brækken, Ingeborg Hoff (2011-06-01). "Can the Paula method facilitate co-contraction of the pelvic floor muscles? A 4D ultrasound study". International Urogynecology Journal. 22 (6): 671–676. doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1317-8. ISSN 1433-3023.
  • Resende, Ana Paula M.; Zanetti, Míriam R. D.; Petricelli, Carla D.; Castro, Rodrigo A.; Alexandre, Sandra M.; Nakamura, Mary U. (2011-06-01). "Effects of the Paula method in electromyographic activation of the pelvic floor: a comparative study". International Urogynecology Journal. 22 (6): 677–680. doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1331-x. ISSN 1433-3023.
  • Bø, Kari; Herbert, Robert D. (2013-09-01). "There is not yet strong evidence that exercise regimens other than pelvic floor muscle training can reduce stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review". Journal of Physiotherapy. 59 (3): 159–168. doi:10.1016/S1836-9553(13)70180-2. ISSN 1836-9553.
Obviously we should not let the article become pseudoscientific, as has happened in the past, but there's enough WP:MEDRS coverage that it's appropriate to have an article on the topic. Jfire (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep covered in multiple sources reliable sources. The article cites a "systematic review" in a medical journal, which is the type of reference that the highest quality by MEDRS standards. Agree (obviously) with the need to keep eyes on it to prevent COI, non-RS, FRINGE-tone, etc. DMacks (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Said systematic review [5] cites and summarizes seven further papers (selected for being randomized controlled trials of the method) that could be used for sourcing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 6 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Joffre

Sebastian Joffre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment makes no reference to WP:GNG, which is the reason why this was sent to AfD. Nobody is arguing that he hasn't played professionally or that he isn't young with an ongoing career Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added many sources to the article. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The first two Orlando City SC refs are dead links, but would be non-independent regardless, Red XN. [6] is a high school interview in local news, clearly fails YOUNGATH, Red XN. The Collier Sports Insider appears to be a defunct small-town (it had an article on Collier County Special Olympics bocce ball competition's partnership with the Naples Italian American Foundation...) newsletter covering Collier County sports that is extremely unlikely to be RS let alone pass YOUNGATH, Red XN. [7] is a high school sports match recap, Red XN. [8] [9] is another routine, local high school football match recap, Red XN. [10] is an announcement by EFSC Titans, Red XN. [11] is a non-independent database entry, Red XN. [12] is another OCSC piece, Red XN. [13] is a trivial mention, Red XN. [14] is a release from CPFC, Red XN. [15] is a podcast interview by some random soccer player investment fund guy: clearly SPS, non-independent, and primary, Red XN. [16] is a routine transactional announcement, Red XN. [17] is another routine transactional announcement, Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is also important to mention that the article has been expanded. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON as the existing coverage is routine or trivial in nature, or not independent of the subject. He's played a handful of games at club level so far, so maybe in the future he will play regularly and then generate coverage sufficient to meet our guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject lacks the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Naples News is pretty good but I'm not convinced by the rest. The podcast doesn't mean much in terms of notability. Heck, even I am part of a football podcast and wouldn't even dream of using it as a source on here! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to source analysis by JoelleJay. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with others about User:JoelleJay's (as usual) common sense source assessment. Keep assertions above are not supported by the sources applied or the reasonable BEFORE I performed. The subject exists, but nothing approaching direct detailing in significant coverage in independent reliable sources has been shown or found. This is a BLP and we shouldn't consider routine sports results as compelling reason for notability. BusterD (talk) 09:21, 13 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) 21:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendale Liburd

Kendale Liburd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:52, 5 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chabad Chief Rabbis

List of Chabad Chief Rabbis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:LISTCRUFT, contested PROD. At the very minimum the lead section needs to be expanded and the overall list condensed, but I honestly don't feel that such a lengthy list is appropriate as a standalone article. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many lists that are far longer; condensing the list would remove relevant info, and there's no good way to decide which is more relevant. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lead section expanded Helpfulguy101 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Concern I would agree with the Wikipedia definition of Chief Rabbi as "a title given in several countries to the recognized religious leader of that country's Jewish community, or to a rabbinic leader appointed by the local secular authorities." This appears to be the definition of the other such articles at Lists of chief rabbis. There appears to be only one individual (for Montenegro) where the person listed here has an actual title of Chief Rabbi. The remainder seem to be in a role of lead Chabad shliach for a country or U.S. state, which is basically what's stated in parentheses in the lead. To call these individuals "Chabad Chief Rabbis" seems to be a bit of title inflation; to be honest, I'm not sure what it means to be designated as the Chief Rabbi of North Dakota. A significant portion of entries are entirely unsourced and many that have a source are to Chabad sites for a specific location and most of those mention the local shliach but don't identify the person as either chief rabbi or lead shliach for the country / state. The article may well be worth retention, but it needs far better sourcing and likely needs a more accurate title. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as "chabad chief rabbi", a. if there's one shliach in the area he is the head shliach, and b. there can be a discussion to rename it chief chabad rabbi b.there are many individuals on this list designated chief rabbis (Russia, Cyprus, etc,), but they are on Lists of chief rabbis. This is a list of the chief rabbi for the chabad rabbis in the area, and, in many cases, they are the only rabbis in the area, wether they refer to themselves as chief rabbi or not. No-one was designated "Chief Rabbi of North Dakota", although he is, as far as I can tell, the only Rabbi in North Dakota. He is the Chabad Head Shliach, or Chief Rabbi, in North Dakota. Again, if you want to change the wording to "chief chabad rabbi", whatever, but they are the chief rabbis as far as chabad goes. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The head shliach is the recognized leader of the chabad community Helpfulguy101 (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Prodding is very inappropriate for such lists, as opposition was to be expected. The analysis of nom, however, is correct. This is LISTCRUFT. It isn't particularly respectful of Chabad either. Beyond the titles of the rabbis, also the geography is partially WP:OR. gidonb (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What does "respectful of Chabad" have to do with anything? Helpfulguy101 (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each person may raise all the points that bother them. My objection is clear. This list is LISTCRUFT. gidonb (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list is definitely not indiscriminate. It could be argued that it's trivial, but Chabad is, in many places, the only Jewish presence, and this lists the rabbis who run this system. Many of the rabbis listed are notable people, many with separate articles, and many more qualify for one. List of Catholic bishops in the United States is much longer, more general, and more bloated, with detailed profiles of many of the people referenced. This does not have bloated info of the listed rabbis, and is specific to Chabad. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing a list of bishops who are actually bishops to a list of chief rabbis who for the most part are not chief rabbis. This comparison contrasts the type of list that should be kept with the type of list that should be deleted. As a list of chief rabbis, this list is not just indiscriminate. It is EXTREMELY indiscriminate. It includes people who even by a far stretch of the imagination are not chief rabbis. Plus this is not the only concern I have expressed with this list. There is exclusion here of the people of the Caribbean and Central America from North America (yikes!) and there is a total disregard (and implicit disrespect) for the female Chabad emissaries who are codirectors of Chabad centers, as are the husbands. And, even then, my list of objections to this list is inconclusive. There is a lot here that contradicts our policies, guidelines, and essays. gidonb (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not meant to be a list of chief rabbis, rather of the chief chabad rabbi in that area. thus, if there is one chabad rabbi in a particular country, that rabbi is the head of Chabad activities in that country. If there are more, barring exceptions, the first one to come is the head of chabad activities there. This list includes those rabbis, and only those rabbis, and is thus not indiscriminate.
Im not sure what the objection to excluding the Caribbean and Central America from North America, and I'm also not sure that anyone would object if that were switched.
Female Chabad emissaries, are, as they themselves would tell you, not rabbis.
There is no definitive definition for "chief rabbi" in any jewish law or literature, rather it implies the rabbi that is appointed over the other rabbis of the community. If there are no other rabbis in the community, such as Cyprus, there are also Chief Rabbis. Catholic bishops, on the other hand, have a clear definition, and are appointed by one system, as agreed upon by all. The only jewish movement, to my knowledge, that has a membership of rabbis from dozens of countries is chabad. therefore, it would seem logical that a list of the head chabad rabbi in each major local exist. The name of such a list is irrelevant. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many statements in all these reactions to Alansohn and me are plainly incorrect. Others are beside the point. I like it does not trump WP:INDISCRIMINATE! gidonb (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree. The only real objection is that they're not chief rabbis, when the definition of "chief rabbi" is very unclear. in addition, they are the chief of the local chabad rabbis, local being relative. I don't see the problem. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's very far from my only objection. It is an important one in a long list. Basically what you uploaded is a DATABASE of the codirectors of all Chabad houses worldwide, minus the women because they "are not rabbis" ("as they would tell me themselves"), and the Chabad houses that were not the main ones in a country or US state. You also introduced two new, totally fake continents to the Western Hemisphere. Next, you did anoint the remaining codirectors "Chief Rabbi", a title the overwhelming majority of these people never received, but the WP:OR started way earlier. This list is a classroom example of original research. gidonb (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all, of the source for the director of chabad activities in said area is from chabad.org/centers, where the movement lists the directors of the said areas. I found it more useful to source the year they started over the source for their position. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you find a database on the web useful. That part is fine. I sometimes use the same resource. Yet, nowhere in the policies and guidelines does it say that editors should copy random parts of databases from the web, give these new interpretations, plead in the AfD that this isn't so bad, engage in WP:WHATABOUTISM, and in WP:BLUDGEONING of those who disagree. gidonb (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:51, 5 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. I found the Keep rationales more convincing, especially tracking down sources. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dalgleish (diplomat)

Andrew Dalgleish (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Diplomacy & Commerce page alone is enough to comply with the WP:GNG, and there are also hits at Google Books and Jstor, as we would expect with a British ambassador. The GNG is not of course anything to do with importance, so in theory I agree that an ambassador could prove to be non-notable, but thanks to the coverage they get in their international role from journalists and academics in practice it would be pretty hard for one to achieve such obscurity. On the question of what is "routine coverage" for an ambassador, that is always going to be at a higher level than for less notable roles in life. The GNG gives this helpful definition: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Moonraker (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Diplomacy & Commerce source is an interview and the other sources in the article are from the UK government, his employer, and are not independent. Present sourcing in the article does not satisfy the GNG. None of the JSTOR hits relate to this particular Andrew Dalgleish, most date from prior to his birth. Google books hits a similar problem. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of them, Goldsztajn, I agree, but not all. And would you say why you are suggesting that an interview can't be a reliable source? I might agree that primary sources do not count for notability, but they can still be relied on for simple facts. Moonraker (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an article about him and his diplomatic activity, in The Nation (India). This has a significant non-interview introduction (7 paragraphs) in Total Croatia News. Lamona (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a mere 2 hits in JSTOR, and I'm not sure if it is even the same person as this ambassador. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Moonraker: I was not suggesting an interview cannot be used for the verification of certain facts, however, an interview, in almost all circumstances (and certainly not here), cannot be used by itself to establish notability, that is, it does not meet the criteria of being an independent, secondary, reliable source. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, Goldsztajn, we agree on what you said above, but is that based on some policy or just on someone's low opinion of the interview format? If an interview is written and published by an independent reliable publisher, we clearly would not rely on the whole of it for opinion, but why not for notability? Moonraker (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The references on the article already, plus finding this interview, collectively establish solid enough notability for me. Gazamp (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Salvio giuliano 20:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in Wales

List of restaurants in Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a clear case of an attempted restaurant guide for Wales and per WP:NOTGUIDE, such guides are specifically out of scope for Wikipedia. That alone should be reason for deletion. Additionally the entries lack notability, and the guide is incomplete, out of date and indiscriminate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Restaurants in Wales meet WP:NLIST (e.g., National Geographic) and the page serves as a suitable navigation entry for the nine or so restaurants that are presumed notable due to having an article. The notion that it fails WP:NOTGUIDE is wrong as entries are dealt with in an encyclopedia manner, and the fact that entries may be out of date or incomplete is not a valid reason to delete. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NLIST says a list is notableif it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I don't see how the National Geographic or any other article that purports to list the top N restaurants (for some value of N) shows that a list of all restaurants in Wales is a notable list, and that is what this page is. The list has no inclusion criteria. An encyclopaedic treatment might be a list of michelin starred restaurants in Wales ( I expect such a list exists in reliable sources), but this purports to be a list of all restaurants. It fails on NLIST because it is indiscriminate. It does not establish notability as a requirement for inclusion, because 12 of the 22 listed restaurants are not notable and red linked. Lists must not be indiscriminate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it purport to be a list of all restaurants? The pages without a Wikipedia page either have or had a Michelin star or received multiple AA rosettes. It would be pretty easy to make an article out of any of the redlinks. The page is not indiscriminate by any means. If you worry that people may ignore the current selection criteria, then add an invisible comment to formally establish selection criteria. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it purport to be a list of all restaurants - The clue is in the name. However I do understand the point you are making about the fact that the list is currently curated in a certain manner that could be understood as encyclopaedic. I don't think the curation is consistent. Pete's Eats is indeed well known, but the standards used for its inclusion appear to differ from the others, and it is a cafe, begging a question as to what is the definition of a restaurant. Thus concerns that it is indiscriminate remain. So, if this were named something else with clear inclusion criteria that did meet NLIST because it has been discussed as a group in independent reliable sources, I would agree that it should be kept. An acceptable alternative to deletion, therefore, would be to rename the list and establish the inclusion criteria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the current article is a very partial and indiscriminate list of a few eating establishments in Wales. Many entries are very dated and no longer reflect the current position. Most of the restaurants have no evidence as to their notability and I would dispute that the red-linked entries could easily have articles made. If so, where are they? It also appears that a criteria for inclusion is being formulated in this AFD yet it is not in the article. This appears to be a post hoc justification for retention. This article fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your belief that it is a post hoc justification for retention makes no sense. AfD is about the potential for saving articles. Being out of date does not matter for a deletion discussion. Your belief that the restaurants have no evidence to notability is also demonstrably false considering each entry has about three in-depth sources. Also, indiscriminate? Every restaurant has won a major award of some type. There is nothing to suggest a small list of 22 eateries considering the size of the country is somehow indiscriminate. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of these places have their own articles Category:Restaurants in Wales, and the rest have reliable sources in the BBC and elsewhere that prove them notable entries that could probably have their own articles created. Dream Focus 23:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are over 8,000 catering businesses in Wales (2018), no idea if that includes the over 1000 unlicenced restaurants. Better numbers could be found (the Business Wales website seems down which doesn't help, it's probably somewhere in the ONS), but however it gets cut that's simply impractical as a list. CMD (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one here is advocating for it to list every freakin' restaurant in Wales, what are you on about? This lists notable entries that have garnered significant coverage or awards. This is a poor deletion rationale that tries to argue that this list has a different scope than it actually does. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a clear criteria. If it's just notability, we have the Category. If it's for specific awards, then it should be reworked to reflect that. CMD (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:NOTDUP! Even if you trimmed this down to restaurants with their own pages, it would still qualify as a well-written navigational list. If the selection criteria needs to be re-worked, that is an editing decision and fails Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. And please re-read up on what notable means. Something is notable based on the existence of sources, not whether or not it has a Wikipedia page. Pick out any restaurant from the current list; I can find you at least five high-quality sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you're arguing for a much longer list while keeping to the current criteria, in which case I refer you back to my initial comment. CMD (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A longer list? Longer than what? There are not that many restaurants in Wales (certainly not thousands) that have been the subject of several national-level sources or awards. To try and say the list will grow to be that large is fallacious. The list is fine as is, although entries that are suitably sourced can always be added. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are not that many restaurants in Wales (certainly not thousands) that have been the subject of several national-level sources or awards. Again, I understand the point you are making and if the list were renamed and inclusion criteria restricted to, say, triple AA rosettes, then I would agree that this was a notable list. That, however, is not what it is at present. For instance, Cnapan Hotel, Newport is included apparently simply because it is a listed building. Now if you start adding in all the restaurants in listed buildings in Wales, thousands is actually not so implausible. Wales has 30,000 listed buildings and a high proportion of them do contain restaurants (I can't tell you if it is just hundreds or whether into the thousands, but it is a lot). A lot of the entries have three or more AA rosettes, which indicates they have achieved culinary standards that demand national recognition. A list of AA three+ rosette restaurants would meet NLIST. Note that some have fewer than three, whilst that still being the only listed inclusion basis, and that again starts multiplying the numbers whilst removing "national recognition" from the accolade. As it stands, the list remains indiscriminate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the list were renamed and inclusion criteria restricted to, say, triple AA rosettes, then I would agree that this was a notable list. Then do something along the lines of that (although using triple AA rosettes is silly; just define what the notability requirements are). WP:Deletion is not cleanup, and there is nothing here needing a WP:TNT. And no, Cnapan Hotel is not included because it just happens to be in a listed building. It's because the restaurant itself has garnered acclaim from many, many sources per Cnapan Hotel#Reception. Your point about how including restaurants in buildings would lead to thousands is straight-up false. Those restaurants also need significant coverage to be included. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have plenty of articles like this. Category:Lists of restaurants by country and far more in Category:Lists of restaurants. Every time one of these goes to AFD, it always ends in keep. It is a valid information and navigational link, lists show more information and are therefore more useful than categories, and the only things listed have their own Wikipedia article or reliable sources talking about them. Dream Focus 04:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only find one AfD from the by country lists, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian restaurants from 2010. It resulted in a keep (and a move, although that move would not apply here). This Wales list is certainly in better state than say List of restaurants in Australia, which is sourced solely to Hooters Australia. CMD (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in New Jersey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Cincinnati, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Baltimore happened not that long ago. Dream Focus 09:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! CMD (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)h[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NLIST, WP:NEXIST, and Why? I Ask. gidonb (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but of course remove any that are clearly not notable. It's a valid thing to list, particularly for a country. Sionk (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree not every restaurant needs to be included, but as long as a couple of sources can be included and it's limited, it should be fine. It's useful information and it's hard to argue this one needs to go while other restaurant by state/country lists don't. I don't think a restaurant closing should mean the list becomes invalid, because a closed restaurant can be notable.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above, remove the entries without articles and keep to notable entries if there are concerns over non-notable entires or indiscriminate criteria, per a WP:CSC. If this were to be deleted, similar points would have to be raised at similar list articles if questions are raised whether there should be lists of restaurants at all. Concerns over what should and should not be a list would have more weight if it were done across all similar articles. There are at least multiple sources describing restuarants in Wales to at least pass WP:NLIST [18] [19] [20] [21]. DankJae 18:44, 10 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. Joyous! Noise! 02:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speda TV

AfDs for this article:
Speda TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While language search is an issue, the sourcing issues still remain as per the prior AfD. It does good work and has been punished for it, but is it notable? Note, creator has faced some COI questions, but put this through AfC, and I have no issue with their conduct. Star Mississippi 14:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman, I saw improvement since Star Mississippi's decline of the draft, and furthermore I did not see any WP:NPOV issues so I accepted it. I have eased up my AfC standards after discussions at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 249#About our process for approving at AfC & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Backlog drive progress about AfC being too harsh while accepting drafts. This doesn't mean that I do not look at the quality of a draft. In my 200+ reviews, I do not think I have shown wrong judgement in any one of them. This is the first time my accepted draft has been brought to AfD, but I do not take this negatively. If there is consensus that this article should be deleted, I have no good reasons to believe otherwise. But I will surely improve my judgement nonetheless. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in addition to the AfD and declines here (disclosure, at least one was mine, and I closed the aforementioned AfD), there's also the history at Draft:Speda_Tv for those with admin goggles. Star Mississippi 14:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 5 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weather warfare

Weather warfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that the subject of the article exists. For example it says that rainfall was increased by 30% but provides no proof. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jfire (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply a quote from one of those sources of any successful attack or defense to prove that the subject exists? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the abstract of Pincus (2017):
"The military, largely through the Air Force, advanced a series of projects investigating the potential of weather and climate control, manipulation, and ultimately weaponisation. These programs, which were sometimes linked to US Department of Agriculture programs aimed at improving agricultural production, persisted for decades. Some of the newly developed tools were deployed: local climate manipulation efforts during the Vietnam conflict were aimed at impeding traffic along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, with mixed results. Significant efforts came during the Weather Bureau leadership of Francis W. Reichelderfer, whose papers contain a wealth of information about efforts ranging from cloud seeding to proposals to drop atomic weapons on hurricanes. These papers, along with those of Weather Bureau scientist Harry Wexler, provide a fascinating window to a time when the US military and scientific establishment seemed poised to grasp the levers of power over nature itself. This paper describes these little-studied programs, and situates these efforts within the broader military science programs accompanying the emergence of air warfare, as well as post-war science programs aimed at countering the Soviet challenge."
Jfire (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“with mixed results” sounds like nobody can actually prove they impeded traffic at all Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Operation Popeye was successful isn't relevant to this deletion discussion, because "has been used successfully" isn't an inclusion criteria for articles about military technologies. We wouldn't delete the FA Project Excalibur just because the technology it researched was never used outside of tests. Jfire (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the Operation Popeye article Chidgk1 (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the sources identified above. Might not work as a weapon, but the process is documented, that's all that matters for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 20:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FCIV.NET

FCIV.NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability, only 1 article that the author probably wrote themselves Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The own author is voting to not have this article deleted. Additionally, there's no coverage of "FCIV.net" and it's completely unknown, it meets none of the requirements to have an article as well as WP:GNG, and the list goes on. Wikipedia must delete this article! ImperialMajority (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The game has been covered by Civfanatics.com, on Twitter, YouTube and Reddit. Nybygger (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, those are not reliable sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What definition of reliable? This word reliable is open to interpretation. Nybygger (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Open to interpretation? Not according to Wikipedia. You are fighting a losing battle.   ArcAngel   (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
The topic of FCIV.NET has been covered significantly in 2 articles in the reliable source Civfanatics.com (a civ game news site) which is independent of Fciv.net and it's authors. Nybygger (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "cancel culture" to delete an article on Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia is not the right place for you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable external source: https://www.civfanatics.com/2022/12/19/fciv-net-december-2022-showcase/ Nybygger (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You posted that same link four times already. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I respond with the sources for the article, which these comments claims don't exist. Nybygger (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not independent of the subject to establish notability. Reddit and Youtube aren't considered reliable sources, either.   ArcAngel   (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nybygger, please stop your disruptive editing immediately. You do not have to repeat yourself again and again. Reddit, YouTube and a dedicated fansite are not reliable sources. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Stop disrupting the discussion with repeating yourself over and over again. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Croatia-Slovenia border disputes. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Slovenia border

Croatia–Slovenia border (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see what the point of this is other than to fork Croatia–Slovenia relations and Croatia-Slovenia border disputes. Why would we need to maintain the same content in so many different places? Joy (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 19:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhayankar Pari

Bhayankar Pari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFCHAR. Coverage is not enough for independent article. It should be deleted or redirected to the parent article. Gazal world (talk) 18:17, 5 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Test & Trace Canada

Rapid Test & Trace Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable company, the sources quote company representatives or mention the company in passing but don't contain any coverage that would satisfy WP:NCORP. Spicy (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's take a look at the sources:

[23], [[24]], [25], [26] - press-releases/interview

[27] - official site

[28] - co-founders' article

[29] - looks independent, however, just a short mention

[30] - "please attribute this as a Rapid Test & Trace Canada survey in all media mentions"

Therefore, fails WP:SIGCOV. KhinMoTi (talk) 18:23, 5 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. Arguments to keep are stronger here, as the provided sources have not been explicitly rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Butler

Georgina Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Routine coverage here fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, I have just counted eight references to this Georgina Butler, the ambassador or diplomat, at Google Books. As you say, there are others which are not her. Moonraker (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the "many hits" on JSTOR? I don't see any. LibStar (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Perhaps we do see here "routine coverage" for a British ambassador, but that is always going to be at a higher level than for less notable roles in life. The GNG gives this helpful definition: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Moonraker (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Moonraker that those are two solid sources. For filling in details some non-independent sources are fine. Does anyone have access to Nicaraguan newspapers? That should give us more sources. Lamona (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep With the sources Moonraker has provided, plus what is already in the article, I'd say that is enough to support the page remaining. Editors should remember that AfDs are not a substitution for article clean-up.Historyday01 (talk) 04:43, 8 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. Joyous! Noise! 02:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chanderprabhu Jain (CPJ) College of Higher Studies & School

Chanderprabhu Jain (CPJ) College of Higher Studies & School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been moved back and forth to draft and the creator requested to complete the review procedure. However, it has now been re-created in main by moving the draft-talk page and copying in some content possibly by C&P. (See Draft:Chanderprabhu Jain (CPJ) College of Higher Studies & School). 'Naive' search did not reveal additional SIGCOV and in view of the 'history', a discussion is now warranted. Eagleash (talk) 16:37, 5 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. Joyous! Noise! 02:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent Gangaidzo

Innocent Gangaidzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Had marked this for notability last week, and hoped it would be improved. A single ref was added, which has a very brief mention of the person. There is not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, so it hinges on whether his position as president of ECSACOP satisfies WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you @Reidgreg for a more fair assessment.
@Randykitty: @Headbomb: This is what I meant by, "I wonder why I often encounter resistance whenever I create articles about clearly notable African entities. It's extraordinary as conventional Wikipedia notability criteria no longer apply. These articles are nominated for deletion or deemed not to be suitable as stand-alone articles."
Gangaidzo meets at least four different notability criteria: (1) president of ECSACOP (2) editor-in-chief of an established academic journal, which has been in operation for nearly 70 years (3) former president of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe (4) impact by number of citations. Any one of these alone would be sufficient for Wikipedia notability. I will provide an additional example: Suzanne Crowe is president of the Medical Council of Ireland which makes her rightly notable. In addition to Godfrey Muguti, former president of COSECSA, the next page I was going to create was Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe, which was established over 100 years ago - in 1905. Such organizations are notable e.g. Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council. Even if one uses independent sources from reputable organizations, it is still not enough. It is thus clear to me that content related to Africa is not particularly welcome on Wikipedia as it's notability is immediately questioned despite easily meeting the criteria. Various tags are then applied to the article(s).
I should not be surprised, after all there is systemic bias on Wikipedia.
BW and good luck.
@Doc James: @I JethroBT: @Bobbyshabangu: @Islahaddow: @DaSupremo:
Ear-phone (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The CAJM is emphatically not a "major well-established" journal. As for the suggestion that there's somehow an anti-African bias here, I don't see that. To me, such a bias would be that sourcing judged sufficient for a non-African subject would not be judged sufficient for an African subject. As far as I can see, the same criteria that would be used for non-African subjects ae applied here. Unfortunately, it's a fact of live that fewer sources exist for subjects from some parts of the world. The solution to that it getting more sources, and creating more articles for those subjects where sources exist, not lowering our criteria for some subjects. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Talk:Central_African_Journal_of_Medicine here are the criteria for notability of an academic journal (If a journal meets any of the following criteria):
Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.
The CAMJ was included in the selective MEDLINE database (and even in the Index Medicus from 1965-2015). Therefore CAJM is emphatically a notable journal according to Wikipedia criteria.
With respect to sourcing, according to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher." The sources used for Innocent Gangaidzo are largely independent, accurate, high quality, from reputable organizations, etc. see Talk:Innocent_Gangaidzo
@TJMSmith
Ear-phone (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably a weak keep although I understand both sides of the argument. I think the definitions of what is a well established journal is not clear from the criteria and CAJM is probably established enough. This combined with presidence of ESCASOP probably means the subjects meet one or two of WP:ACADEMIC criteria.
JamesKH76 (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Gangaidzo was president of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe from 2010 to 2015 (as previously mentioned). Which alone meets Wikipedia notability criteria. See Suzanne Crowe president of the Medical Council of Ireland. Crowe has fewer scholarly citations than Gangaidzio.
I also created, in the past, Michael Osborn (pathologist) who is President of The Royal College of Pathologists. There was no resistance whatsoever with this article despite him having fewer scholarly citations than Gangaidzo, me using similar sources as I did for Gangaidzo as references, Osborn not being an Editor-in-Chief of an academic journal or a head of other organisations.
What is the difference I wonder, Gangaidzo is from Africa and Osborn is from Europe. Ear-phone (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I closed this a week ago with the following rationale:"The result was delete. Several of the "keep" votes are clearly not based in policy: I see people citing NMUSIC#1, yet no SIGCOV has been provided; I also see people citing NMUSIC 5, and yet the article does not seem to show that any album has been released, let alone one on a major label (yes, I can see she has appeared as a singer on film soundtracks; that's not the same thing)." I relisted it upon request, yet the consensus has only gotten clearer since then. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parul Mishra

Parul Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was tagged for notability for a couple of weeks without improvement. Moved to draftspace, but was objected to and moved back to mainspace, again without improvement. They have no awards, charting, touring, and no other notable songs besides the one that she seems to have just been hired to sing. I don't see them meeting WP:MUSICBIO. At this point, the song she's most known for is a 5 episode web series called Aspirants. Right now sourced by puff pieces from sources which are not deemed reliable when it comes to show business articles. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 22:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it looks like the editor was provided with plenty of opportunities to meet either WP:SINGER or WP:GNG since original review and the next move is deletion, given it fails on both. It seems that several short articles from ETimes, an entertainment platform of Times of India, are erroneously identified as Times of India in footnotes and are not used to support any claims of notability (current sources 1 to 4 are included as citations for the first sentence of the lead introducing the subject). Some more recent sources include a blog and a YouTube video, failing WP:V. Ppt91 (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source has won reality show which was judged by non other than Oscar award winner and Composer A. R. Rahman himself and gave source the first major break. In one of the reference, he himself praising the source. Times of India reference provided where the Padma Vibhushan (The second highest civilian award of India) winner Birju Maharaj praising her albums. In another reference, Indian composer Louis Banks is impressed with the source and her singing talent. List of awards included one by the Government of India. If all this does not seems enough then 99% of the article of Wikipedia must be deleted. I strongly against the deletion of this Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risu43 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a bit silly to imply that this person is more notable than 99% of Wikipedia. Notable people praising someone does not make the person being praised notable. "has won reality show.." - Are you referring to the contest hosted by a radio station ("Fever 104 SING WITH A.R. RAHMAN CONTEST")? "List of awards included one by the Government of India." - It looks like this was a scholarship, but I'm having trouble finding a mention of it. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the discussion above, the sources seem to be misrepresented, having a listing on a gov't website doesn't imply notability. Rest of the items seem as trivial, I don't see any at-length discussion about this person. MUSIC not met. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b could you please answer the below points:
- What do you mean by at-length discussion? Are you expecting a newspaper to write an essay on the source?
- Have you ever read what is written in WP: Music? What is the criteria under which a musician/singer can be consider notable as per WP: Music.?
Now to answer you, the source is clearly meeting criteria no 1, 5, 6 and 8 of WP: Music. already elaborated above in details.
The reference numbered 1 to 6 are all detailed article and are not just trivial.
So could you please give a second thought on your viewpoint!! Thanks! Risu43 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we'd expect some sort of an article on the person, not just name drops. An essay is what we could use for notability. MUSIC is having a charted single, a gold album, multi-sales awards and the like. This wiki article doesn't have any of those. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b could you please go through WP: Music. again. I guess you overlooked one of the key vital point: At least one of the criteria is sufficient to establish the notability under WP: Music.
    Let me cite the phase directly from WP: Music.
    "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria".
    Repeating again, the source is clearly meeting criteria no 1, 5, 6 and 8 of WP: Music.
    The source is not that rich enough to pay the newspaper to write an essay on her. Generally Musicians/Singer are known by their work, so any article covering their work is same as covering about the source specifically. If you go through the articles bit more carefully and also the articles in Hindi language, you will understand that it's not just a name drop, it happens to discuss the source in few lines subject to her work.
    Having said that, if all the references are put together, this makes a good case for WP:NBASIC.
    Thanks! Risu43 (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Concur with the reasoning by Ppt91 and nominator. There's some ref-bombing around the award, but questionable if the award is notable (no article here) enough to help meet NBIO/NMUSIC. Parts of the discography aren't sourced, including the first album (with only a single song?). Nothing in article body about the albums and having reviews from notable reviewers would be helpful to show their work being noticed. There's a lot of passing mentions in the sources, but more is needed and it's just not here from good quality sources. Ravensfire (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ravensfire,
    Naushaad Sangeet Samman award is one of the prestigious regional award given by Govt of UP. Renowned and world famous artistes like Ustad Amjad Ali Khan, Kalyanji- Anandji, Khayyam, Pt Shiv Kumar sharma, Hema Malini, Rekha Bhardwaj, Sonu Nigam, Talat Aziz etc have been awarded with this prestigious award. To answer you, yes it is notable enough to meet NBIO/NMUSIC.
    Also as per NMUSIC, At least one of the criteria is sufficient to establish the notability and the source is clearly meeting criteria no 1, 5, 6 and 8.
    Hence meeting WP:MUSICBIO.
    Tell me one singer/musician's Wikipedia where ALL the discography are sourced. Please provide me just one.
    Times of India reference provided where the Padma Vibhushan (The second highest civilian award of India) winner Birju Maharaj praising her albums. In another reference, Indian composer Louis Banks is impressed with the source, her albums and her singing talents.
    So I disagree with your comment - Nothing in article body about the albums and having reviews from notable reviewers would be helpful to show their work being noticed.
    In additional to that, WP: ANYBIO allows that if the depth of the coverage in any of the given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I believe there is enough non-trivial mentions to allow for an article on this subject.
    Risu43 (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NMUSIC 1 - maybe, at best. A lot of passing mentions, interviews and fluff which doesn't meet this.
    NMUSIC 5 - not met, no sourced information in article about which label released the albums and some searches suggest the second one is independent. The first has, according to the article, one song - that does not make an album.
    NMUSIC 6 - nothing in article to support this.
    NMUSIC 8 - sorry, a non-notable regional award is NOT a major award at the level listed in the article.
    As NMUSIC notes, meeting the criteria MAY be notable. Taking the article as a whole, it's just not there for this person. And please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - we're talking about this article, and issues with this article, I know quite well there are a lot of other poor quality articles pushed by fans and PR groups associated with artists. Can't fix that here, you're more than welcome to nominate other articles for deletion that you feel aren't up to par. Ravensfire (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note one song also make an album. It's is called Single. Please check the NSingle. Risu43 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know why few people enjoy deleting articles. It's means wasted efforts of author who put hell lots of time on doing the research work on subject, editors and even reviewers. Yeah I understand that crap should be removed but people should not come so hard and show some humility as Wikipedia article is always work-in-progress and never completed. I believe in expanding the Wikipedia with good articles and content. Having said that I like to highlight few things as this is the final listing.

1. WP:MUSICBIO #1 is meeting along with GNG/SIGCOV. Please find the below reliable independent reference which show significant coverage.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/parul-mishra-the-folk-music-of-india-should-not-lose-its-relevance/articleshow/72866428.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/padma-vibhushan-pt-birju-maharaj-is-impressed-with-singer-parul-mishras-new-album/articleshow/72934239.cms

2. WP:MUSICBIO #10 and #5: Had sung in movies like Ada... A Way of Life] (music is on Big Music record level) , Hum Bhi Akele Tum Bhi Akele (music on Zee Music Company), Thalaivii (music on T-Series), and few web series like Aspirants, Flames. All these movies and web series are notable and have Wikipedia articles and their music are on renowned music label. Besides she has been a part of few reality show like Sa Re Ga Ma Pa 2012 and MTV Rock On which are again notable and have their Wikipedia page too WP:REALITYSINGER.

3. WP:MUSICBIO 8#: Awarded with Naushaad Sangeet Samman award presented by Department of Culture, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Renowned and world famous artistes like Ustad Amjad Ali Khan, Kalyanji-Anandji, Khayyam, Shivkumar Sharma, Hema Malini, Rekha Bhardwaj, Sonu Nigam, Talat Aziz etc have been awarded with this prestigious award, all being notable and Wikipedia have their pages. According to few editors only music awards like Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammys award are notable, so if that the case then India and many more country don't have any notable music awards..?? I like to bring it to your attention that the awards mentioned above should be treated as an example and not as a final list of music award across global. Naushaad Sangeet Samman award is a notable award and every year more 30-40 independent reliable newspaper cover this award which itself demonstrate the notability.

4. A Google search of the Subject Parul Mishra , shows significant search results. Moreover the subject has been listed on IMDb, Spotify , Apple Music, JioSaavn, Hungama , Wynk. Subject also have a verified Facebook page . All these show some notability.

5. Song listings available on MusicBrainz which again demonstrate some sort of notability as per Resources section in WP:MUSIC.

So as per WP: ANYBIO and WP:NBASIC, combining all these, results in a significant notability, allowing an article on the subject. Risu43 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might want to drop the WP:STICK, it's not helping your cause. Onel5969 TT me 22:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not saying anything in air. Whatever I have mentioned, I hv cited Wikipedia policy.
So request you to go through those before voting, be it WP:MUSICBIO #10 or #5.
And please don't Control+F in the newspaper articles rather try to read the entire content. Risu43 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Risu43, you do know that practically any artist can get listed on streaming music services even if no one listens to their work. And you can create your own bio on IMDB, I've seen IMDB profiles of a lot of people who have YouTube channels (or "actors" who have no films/TV series listed at all) so it is not evidence of notability either. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree with you. But here in case of Parul Mishra, IMDB and other Steaming music services have songs listed from notable films in which she has worked as a playback singer, providing some evidence in support of WP:Musicbio #10. Risu43 (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The award not a notable award. Not sure if it's a state government award either. UP dept of culture has no mention of this award on their website [31]. It's probably linked to Awadh Samman (also likely a non-notable award, falsely claiming to be a state government award). Even if it is a government award, it's just a regional award, with no significant coverage. There's nothing else in the article, to establish notability. — hako9 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] [42] for your reference. Risu43 (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting an award is not tantamount to significant coverage, especially when it is a non-notable award. You can produce a 100 more sources mentioning her getting this award. It would still not warrant an article. — hako9 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why it is not meeting notability as per Wikipedia:Notability (awards and medals). Please provide your justification. Risu43 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exclusionary Criteria #3 - The award is granted for promotional reasons by promotional entities.
    Or, if you consider this a government award
    Exclusionary Criteria #4 -The award has been created by a local government and the award is generally unknown outside of that local government's area.
    That essay btw, is relevant for arguing about the notability of the award itself. It is possible that an individual who is granted this non-notable award, may himself/herself be notable for reasons other than being the recipient of this award. In which case, you need to point out why is this individual notable. All you have argued is that she got this award, so she is notable. — hako9 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is the promotional entities here according to you?
    You can go through the my comment where I presented by argument why she is notable aligned with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and have cited appropriate references. You might have misunderstood brother. Risu43 (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is the promotional entities here according to you? The organiser of the Awadh Festival, i.e Hunar Creations Craft Association in this case.
    You can go through the my comment where I presented by argument why she is notable I did. Unfortunately, I reached a different conclusion. — hako9 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the government website reference [43], the Awadh Mahotsav (Festival) is organised by UP Tourism, UP state cultural department and UPSNA in association with Govt of Uttar Pradesh and Govt of India. Risu43 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Awadh Sammaan or Naushaad Sammaan, or whatever it's called, even mentioned on [44] or [45] ? All of this is a moot point btw. I would still vote delete, in case this is a government recognized award, since it's just a local award. It is WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to be mentioned in the article, but getting this award doesn't establish notability in itself. — hako9 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ here. If a award recognized by a government of a country is not enough to be notable then I have nothing to say. I have already presented my case with proper references, aligned with Wikipedia policy and guideline and combining all the references cited results in a significant notability, allowing an article on the subject as per WPNBasic and WPANYBIO. I took the responsibility of improving this page on time to time base but I am against the deletion of he page. Risu43 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were to fit all past and present state-level awardees, of all Indian states/UTs, in all fields, who do not otherwise have any significant coverage, in a room, we couldn't because we'd need a country. — hako9 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to San Diego Padres. Clear consensus to merge, less clear consensus as to the target; this discussion does not preclude information being added to other articles, or a different redirect target being chosen via discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Padres retired numbers

San Diego Padres retired numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As was previously said by Megacheez, there is no reason for the San Diego Padres, of all teams, to have its own article devoted to its retired numbers. There is nothing unique about the Padres' retired numbers that warrants their own article; their coverage is no more significant than any other team. Songwaters (talk) 16:13, 5 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyra Wilkinson

Tyra Wilkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 17:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Design Matters

Opera Design Matters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It is mainly promotional material from the company itself, with no reliable independent sources. There is also no discernible evidence that it meets any of the criteria for being notable. Xelapilled (talk) 15:12, 5 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Indian Cultural Congress

AfDs for this article:
Overseas Indian Cultural Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 13:29, 5 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tieline

Tieline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND. scope_creepTalk 13:16, 5 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 CAF African Schools Football Championship qualification

2023 CAF African Schools Football Championship qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable competition about school football. Kante4 (talk) 13:16, 5 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rostislaw Wygranienko

AfDs for this article:
Rostislaw Wygranienko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tried to prod this after looking at it eight times on the cat:nn list, over several months. Its been on there since 2010. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV, WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creepTalk 13:07, 5 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. Sandstein 12:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Conlon

Liam Conlon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A long way from meeting WP:BIO - I can only find brief mentions of him in reliable sources, e.g. [47] [48] which are actually about his mother Sue Gray (civil servant). SmartSE (talk) 12:13, 5 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perappadi

Perappadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN place UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 5 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. There seems to be a consensus that this article is not close to meeting GNG, so draftification doesn't seem appropriate. However, this article can of course be recreated if circumstances change. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulam Razool

Gulam Razool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not have enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show notability. And when I say enough, I mean zero. One is a short blurb from FBC, one is a single line mention, and the other two do not even mention the player. Was tagged, without improvement, then moved to draft. After which it was immediately returned to mainspace without improvement, with the comment, "Article is decent". Onel5969 TT me 12:00, 5 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 Aam Aadmi Party#Gujarat. Sandstein 12:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AAP Gujarat

AAP Gujarat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

State level party organisations are not generally notable and this just seems to be a promotional platform for a number of individually non notable party functionaries. Mccapra (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 15:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:52, 5 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: D. Majority of voters suggest redirecting. The keep rationales are extremely weak. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Man (character)

Dragon Man (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ALLPLOT article, fails WP:GNG. Better fit for Marvel wiki than Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Notability for an article requires that the concept of the Dragon Man character, as a subject in itself, is the subject of sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and that the sources that demonstrate this are independent of the subject. On these grounds this article fails. As ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ says above, the new sources added to the article do not demonstrate this attention independent from marvel fandom. But lack of notability for an article does not mean we cannot mention the character. There are lists and marvel pages where this character can be mentioned. I re-affirm my belief that this is not a notable subject for an article, but I am content with redirect as an outcome, or even merge and redirect. I believe keep would be the wrong result. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: D - As stated above, the newly added sources are extremely low quality. The only ones that could possibly even actually count as a genuine source are just mentions in "top ten" churnalism lists. I know there have been some debates in previous AFD if those "top ten" style lists from sites like CBR even count as reliable sources, but even if they do, the coverage in them is not significant coverage at all. Outside of that, the new sources are things like the name simply being stated in a list of characters available in a product with absolutely no discussion, which does not actually count as coverage at all. And when they're the best that can be found on the character, there is not enough to sustain an article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rorshacma. The sources don't meet the standards of reliable and independent, with information other than a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:50, 8 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Miller

Marin Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently deleted and unilaterally restored based on the talk page history. Besides IMDb, Behind The Voice Actors, and a few other similarly dubious sources, there doesn't really seem to be anything notable about this person (despite claims by one user on the talk page, appearing at over 30 anime conventions does not create notability); many citations are to Twitter and YouTube. I understand that they've worked on many projects that may be notable themselves, but WP:Notability is not inherited. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Anime and manga. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:ENTERTAINER is the relevant subject specific guideline for voice actors. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; is what it clearly states. This person has played main characters in notable shows, that means significant roles, they getting plenty of lines and in most/all episodes. Dream Focus 00:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They may meet WP:ENT, but what keeps me from voting a Keep is that I was unable to find much reliable sources that at least verify that they have had such roles in all the shows this article claims they has been involved in. I don't think ENT is strong enough to supersede WP:V in this case; there has to be at least some decent sources that verify them as a voice actor. And in my opinion, Behind the Voice Actors is honestly in the same level of IMDb, in that it's a database that should be treated more like an external link rather than an actual source.
    However, under their other name I was able to find a USA Today source. It mentions them in several paragraphs, but it's less on their career and more centered around their personal life. If combined with other decent sources they may pass both ENT and GNG. But so far, their notability is a bit iffy. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are sources in the article already. Also the list of credits shows who was in it. The information is usually in the main article for it. Every single article for any film or television show, animated or not, list who is in the cast. I don't think verification is a problem. Dream Focus 04:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are sources, but most of them are quite questionable as An Anonymous Username said. Counting the 25 refs in current version of the page, 9 of them are from Twitter, 2 of them are from Behind the Voice Actors, a YouTube and Kickstarter source is present with the former appearing to be a primary source (which can be used for articles sparingly), and a slew of websites that either appear to be blogs or press release material. Two reliable sources, both from Anime News Network, appear in the page and do verify their acting roles in a couple shows, but are hardly enough to pass the guidelines on their own. Casting notability problems aside, this page fails the verifiability guidelines pretty hard; with this many unreliable and primary sources in the article, I'm surprised the notability of this page wasn't questioned earlier. Although AfDs aren't cleanup, I think this article desperately needs a rewrite in order to purge most of these sources.
    Also, I did manage to at least find this secondary source that does go over their acting career a bit. You have to access it via the Wikipedia Library though. Maybe between this, the other source I posted earlier and their roles, there's a chance they may pass both GNG and ENT. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I realize this is "enthusiastic fan territory" but I do not find any independent reliable sources to support the content in this article. It would be easier to analyze if the obvious non-RS were removed. Alternatively, if someone can give 2-3 true independent reliable sources, that would help. Part of the fan cruft are at least two SPA's who made only 2 modifications on WP, both to this article. Neither added significant sources. One was the article creator. Lamona (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you view the sources I already posted up above yet? WP:BEFORE requires that editors also search for available sources outside of the article itself; notability is determined not by the quality of sourcing currently in an article, but the existence of high-quality sources as well.
    Also, here's a non-WP Library version of the second article I posted, which seems to be WP:SIGCOV. Honestly, I'm starting to sway a little bit on the Weak Keep side. I looked up other sources and although a lot of reliable ones merely name drop them, they do verify their roles in various notable animes which arguably allows them to meet ENT as Dream Focus said earlier. If the USA Today and In These Times sources were the only factors for their notability I could see how someone would not consider them notable. But per these sources and them ostensibly passing ENT, I think there may be a stronger case for their notability. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at them and again they are mentions and neither is central to this person's bio. I do not think that a paragraph in two reliable sources, one about being childless and one about pay scale, meets GNG. Lamona (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Ctrl + F of their last name on each of these sources reveals that they were mentioned ten times in both articles, which is quite larger than just one paragraph. From a quantitative standpoint the amount of info about her from both sources reach at least over 100 words. While the USA source briefly mentions their acting career, it contains biographical info about their personal life which meets WP:BLP standards. Also, the second source doesn't just go into their pay scale; it also discusses their background and experiences as a voice actor in general. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100 words is an essay, not a policy, and I have never seen it applied successfully to support GNG. It seems pretty minimal to me. Also, I looked at the essay's history and at least 2 of the main editors are blocked. Not a good sign. And here is what we know about Miller's career from that second article - not saying anything is untrue, just that this is the full extent:
"Up until the 1990s, anime was virtually unknown in the United States. Even into the 21st century, according to voice actor Marin Miller, the entire anime dubbing industry involved ​“basically the same 10 people.”
"In the 2000s, as more people discovered anime, fans of the genre — like Miller — began entering the industry."
"Funimation, for example, opened its first dubbing studio in Texas in 1994; Miller recalled visiting the office around 2006, which was ​“in a bank building on the second floor.”
"Most importantly, though, was that many anime voice actors — like Miller, who also worked on video games - saw for the first time that SAG-AFTRA was fighting for them."
Marin Miller says they previously worked on a show (which they did not name for fear of repercussions) that Crunchyroll produced with multiple other companies and prevented from being union despite all other parties being on board."
That's more than 100 words, but to me Miller is an example in this article; nothing is overtly about them. In each of these Miller seems to be an aside in a report about a moderately related topic. Lamona (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 5 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! 07:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civil danger warning

Civil danger warning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic information and topic, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We should not have an article on every possible SAME code, just on the warning systems that can generate these codes. Unfortunately no amount of editing can fix the problem of this topic being unencyclopedic, so I am nominating this article for deletion. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 06:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 5 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cao Yu (artist)

Cao Yu (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biography of a Chinese artist, whose primary claim to fame appears to be a single somewhat provocative performative piece, is light on independent reliable sources. The sole source that I would count in this category, artasiapacific.com, has two lines on the subject in a fairly substantial article. BD2412 T 04:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Guest, Luise (2020-09-01). "Show and Tell: Cao Yu's Gendered Embodiment". Ran Dian. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

      The article notes: "Minimalist, conceptual, and deliberately provocative, Cao’s work reflects upon and exploits the physicality of her materials, from the conventional – marble, stretched linen and canvas – to unexpected, even transgressive, substances including the artist’s own hair, breastmilk and urine, and their various significations. Cao graduated from the academically rigorous Sculpture Department of Beijing’s Central Academy of Fine Arts and cites Sui Jianguo and Zhan Wang as influential teachers and mentors. ... Cao Yu’s uncompromising chutzpah in confronting the masculinist history of modern and contemporary sculpture and performance art – so much testosterone! – echoes the similarly audacious work of a Chinese performance and transdisciplinary artist of the previous generation."

    2. Qiu, Yuanting 邱苑婷 (2021-09-06). "曹雨 艺术的冒犯" [Cao Yu: The Offense of Art]. Southern People Weekly [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Back in the summer of 2016, when you entered the graduate exhibition of the Central Academy of Fine Arts, you would see the work "Spring" by the artist Cao Yu. Pregnant during college, and turned breastfeeding into a work of art - many people know Cao Yu, it is from "Spring". ... Accompanied by the controversy, Cao Yu became famous almost overnight, and she soon received offers from international galleries after being "born out of nowhere"."

      The article further notes from Google Translate: "Five years have passed, and Cao Yu's creation is still continuing with an astonishingly high output.  She tattooed a tiger's head on a bull's heart that was still warm and beating, and held it in front of her "androgynous" body to shoot "Things in the Chest"; she sat on an old sink, her androgynous image, in a black suit, The flat chest, masculine momentum, and the "magic touch" in the work - the water spraying out of the rusty faucet all break the established gender gaze, blur the boundaries between fashion and art, and the audience is caught by the sharp eyes What you are staring at, this is "Dragon Head"."

    3. Shu, Yuan 舒元 (2021-06-07). "曹雨的"路过人间"是首铿锵而热烈的歌" [Cao Yu's "Passing Through the World" is a sonorous and enthusiastic song]. Hi艺术 [Hi Art  ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28. {{cite news}}: no-break space character in |trans-newspaper= at position 8 (help)

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Cao Yu always hits the pain points in the society with a single blow. She pokes them, penetrates human nature, and always forms a strong public opinion. She never presents poetry and freshness in front of you, the kind of violence, fierceness, and rebellion are the main themes. Entering the exhibition hall, you will be enveloped by Cao Yu’s provocation and accuracy."

    4. Wang, Sue (2019-04-17). "Galerie Urs Meile presents "Cao Yu: Femme Fatale" in Lucerne". Central Academy of Fine Arts. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

      The article notes: "Cao Yu continues to expand her oeuvre by presenting a new series of photographic works entitled Femme Fatale, which gave its title to the exhibition and is the artist's first attempt at photography. The experimental nature of Cao's exhibitions stems from I Have an Hourglass Waist - the artist's first solo exhibition at the gallery's Beijing outpost. From video to sculpture, installation to work on canvas, and now photography, her multidisciplinary practice is crucial in challenging the perception of her surroundings, experiences and her role as an artist. Cao’s interpretation is jarring and contemplative for both a new and familiar audience."

    5. Buhr, Elke (2022-09-27). "Künstlerin Cao Yu über Feminismus: "Vergesst Gender!"" [Artist Cao Yu on Feminism: "Forget Gender!"]. Monopol [de] (in German). Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "There is also Cao Yu, born in 1988. The artist from Beijing has received numerous awards in China, and she has just been listed as China's most influential contemporary artist in a WeChat index. Cao Yu works with installation, video, photography and performance and is always good for an unusual action. At her first exhibition at the Urs Meile gallery in Beijing, she blocked a passageway with an installation of black bras that people had to step on to get in."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cao Yu (Chinese: 曹雨) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am strongly leaning towards k**p based on the excellent research by Cunard (well done amazing work!), and will !vote shortly after continuing a deep BEFORE. I was able to add a citation for the M+ Museum collection, Hong Kong;[49] she has several works in that collection, which brings the article closer to establishment of notability. Netherzone (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have gone through each of the sources that Cunard presented (and copied that info to the article talk page for future improvements), these sources are significant coverage of her work, and it thus fulfills WP:GNG. I could not verify any of the other collections other than M+, so she does not seem to meet WP:NARTIST at this time. Having said that, there are some serious problems with the article: the current sourcing is very weak (too many primary sources, an unpublished manuscript, and her own website, and a source that does not mention her at all); and there is an overall promotional tone, for example,With her distinctive interdisciplinary practice，sharp and bold artistic language, she is recognized as the leading figure of Chinese new generation female artists, one of the most influential young artists in China.[citation needed]. And perhaps too much emphasis on her graduate show piece Fountain. It has been heavily edited by single purpose accounts and a blocked sock, so those edits need scrutiny. I suggest pruning it back to a short article that only includes content that is appropriately sourced. Netherzone (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am keeping my vote as is. I have read through the sources, and it all reads like promotional pseudo-feminism. Each article seems to be illustrated with flattering photographs of the subject and art, all credited to the artist's gallery. I realize that artist's agents often provided photos for reliable sources, but I still think this is WP:TOOSOON. I cannot find a reliable source for her stated year of birth. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally get what you are saying, and too feel some skepticism due to the promotional tone, but also the SPAs and blocked sock. I was debating between "Weak K" and "K". I deeply trust your analyses of visual arts articles @WomenArtistUpdates, so I will have another look at the sources. I agree that it could be cleverly written paid content or native advertising. I almost pruned it back to a stub during this debate, but some editors (not anyone here) get bent out of shape when that happens so I did not trim it. Perhaps I should go ahead and prune the fluff? Netherzone (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleaned up the sensationalism and puffery and improved the overall tone, got rid of (or tagged) some obvious paid content, and trimmed it down to a very short article, and incorporated the best two sources found by Cunard. Netherzone (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Netherzone, I was going to comment that you should go ahead and take the trimmer to this, but see you have. It reads so much better now. More like an encyclopedic article. Can you figure out what is going on with the publication section? I thin she just has the one book "I have an hourglass waist" published by her gallery Galerie Urs Meile. Are those stray bullet points making it look like 4 pubs?  Done one publication
Oh gosh, I am now looking at Galerie Urs Meile, Beijing-Lucerne which seems to have been lurking around for a decade.
I was just going to trim the pub section, but you already got to that, thanks! The gallery page should probably be AfD'd, not finding anything per WP:NCORP or GNG about the gallery. Netherzone (talk)
Yep. Just nominated it. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 4 (disambiguation)

Resident Evil 4 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pointless disambiguation. Per WP:PTM, a disambiguation page is not a search index and the movie is not commonly known as RE4. There are only two video games clearly called "Resident Evil 4" and one is a primary topic. Per WP:ONEOTHER, a disambiguation page is not needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 5 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) 06:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gladden, Arizona

Gladden, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An RV/trailer park, preceded by, apparently, a single building of unknown purpose. I couldn't find anything else about it.Mangoe (talk) 05:59, 5 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! 07:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forepaugh, Arizona

Forepaugh, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topos show a rail siding here, not a settlement, so not a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman, Arizona

Freeman, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A hopeless searching case but the topos and aerials show a building or two which in GMaps appear as a small patch of foundations. It's impossible to determine what was here but there's no evidence it was anything town like. Mangoe (talk) 05:27, 5 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. Neither side really attempts a discussion of the quality of the sources currently referenced in the article. Sandstein 12:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Valeryevich Montik

Ivan Valeryevich Montik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage that isn't focussed on his company Softswiss. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the civic activist (in my opinion he is notable). I created a page on Polish wiki in 2022 but only today connected it to English and found it here on deletinon. Belarus wiki is poor and people there are afraid of publicating anything relaged to civic activism or opposing Luka regime. So you cannot find this page there. Chwalibog (talk) 15:51, 8 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 Asia Innovations Group. Most contributors are not convinced of the notability of this enterprise. Interested editors may want to merge some of the content to the redirect target. Sandstein 12:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hekka

Hekka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified.
In my opinion, I am leaning towards Keep because there is one really good reference in the English language and a couple that look OK despite my poor translation skills from Chinese. For example, this article in China Daily appears to meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability as it contains in-depth Independent Content about the *company*. HighKing++ 12:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • HighKing, that China Daily item is certainly thoroughly in-depth but I wonder how independent it might be, as the "东方网" authorship looks like a company (PR?) rather than a bylined individual, and it has the appearance of being published in association with the Asia Innovations Group parent company (which is also a potential redirect target). AllyD (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllyD I'm not at all sure that the article was written by a "company" - the name translates to "Eastnet" although the URL ends with "eastday" with a description of "Oriental Finance". It doesn't appear that the attributed author has written any other articles so it is difficult to form an opinion. I've less of a problem with the article itself. For example, the article's voice speaks from personal opinion and experience in may places and draws observations from third party sources without being over-the-top or gushing. Against that, the "About Asia Innovation Group" section is written in a contrasting style (e.g. "hereinafter referred to as" and "is a leading" and "committed to bringin innovative internet products" etc). In my opinion this one doesn't ring any major alarm bells to definitely point to it as PR. Hence my Weak Keep !vote. I'll keep an eye here and see how the discussion progresses but I'll stick with my !vote for now. HighKing++ 20:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Czech and Portuguese language sources carry affiliate marketing URLs of products on the Hekka website; The Italian article links us to another article which carries affiliate program URLs. None of these three websites appear to be reliable sources anyway. The China Daily article is a sparkling press release sourced from eastday.com. Fails WP:NCORP. Surprised by the keep vote above. Maduant (talk) 08:19, 3 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! 05:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Asia Innovations Group: An article about an e-comm brand recently introduced by the parent company, with much of the article repeating information about the parent company, its user base, etc. Temporarily setting aside reservations about the independence of the sources, the coverage cited in the article bundles this with others under the parent ("Two of Asia Innovations Group Unlimited’s biggest brands, Uplive and Hekka, collaborated to sponsor this event"); and the piece in China Daily is detailed, but is effectively boosting the firm's supply chain handling and localised market proposition, attributes which seem necessary rather than innovative for any e-comm firm in the field. I am not seeing evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:NCORP or WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 7 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Osagie

Elliot Osagie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only discussed in a Forbes contributor peace, nothing found in reliable sources. Nothing extensive for coverage, many name drops. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Delete unless some sources can be found that are substantially about him. The ones in the article (and I don't find others with a standard search) mention him in a sentence or two but don't give any biographical information. I also note that at least 2 of the sources have this same sentence, which is a quote from Osagie: "“One of the things I’ve learned building Biggie’s audience all these years is his global impact. We wanted to create a song that paid homage to that impact, hence the Afrobeats theme,” This tells me that they came from the same press release. Those sources are: okayplayer, rockthebells. Another source, hnhh, doesn't mention him at all. Lamona (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've already voted.-KH-1 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking duplicate vote. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 6 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! 05:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Meitei folktales. Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stories from the Funga Wari (Naharol Khorjei Thaugallup Jaribon)

Stories from the Funga Wari (Naharol Khorjei Thaugallup Jaribon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Definitely not notable. A Google search for the book doesn't turn up any sources except for e-pao.net, the only source in the article, which looks to be pretty questionable. If the book isn't notable, a list of stories in the book would obviously not be notable too. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 5 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) 06:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Botwe

Emmanuel Botwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG. zoglophie 04:58, 5 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 National Commissions for UNESCO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Commission for Unesco

Netherlands Commission for Unesco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subsidiary doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG - lacks independent coverage meeting the WP:ORGDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:56, 5 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neem Phuler Modhu

Neem Phuler Modhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pay-TV show doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL press stories. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super Drift 3D

Super Drift 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 'sources' are all just websites that host the game. Also, half of the sources are about other games in the series, not the article subject. Not sure how this survived NPP. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Eddy

Austin Eddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by the subject, non-notable artist. Largely promo, no sourcing found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG, is unknown, and the author of the article is literally Austin Eddy. Komskie (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ImperialMajority (talk) 15:51, 10 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hazim Bangwar

Hazim Bangwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable civil servant. No mentions found in reliable sources, beyond name drops. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 5 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdomcity Auckland

Kingdomcity Auckland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot establish notability for this church. Prosperosity (talk) 01:01, 5 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Football

Major League Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a spring football league that was "established in 2014", yet, as of 2023, has yet to even play. Nearly half of the article's links are dead and severely outdated. The "2022 MLFB season" did not happen. All of those linked to this article (such as Jerry Glanville) need to have their pages updated to reflect the fact that this league does not exist and never will. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 01:00, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_5&oldid=1144335116"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 5, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.