Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 31	November 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. While the subject's death received significant coverage, the sense of the discussion is that there is insufficient coverage to show notability. Several people mentioned that a redirect to the march article is appropriate. I am not making that part of the close because I don't see that it reached consensus, but neither was it opposed. I therefore placed the redirect as a normal editing decision. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaf Naeem

)

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

Subject fails WP:BLP1E with minimal RS coverage prior to her untimely demise under circumstances that almost inevitably generated some tabloidish coverage. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, News media, Television, and Pakistan. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although most of coverage about Sadaf Naeem came with her accidental death but she as a news personality prior to her death was also somewhat notable so this article can stay. USaamo ^(t@lk) 08:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no in-depth coverage regarding this journalist, except for death. Clear case of
WP:BIO1E.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I'm not able to find any coverage about her that pre-dates her death, let alone anything in depth. Nothing I've seen from after her death has any in-depth coverage of her life prior to death. I would have suggested merging to
2022 Azadi March-II but the incident section there already covers everything notable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirecting to 2022 Azadi March-II seems plausible then. USaamo ^(t@lk) 11:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to

2022 Azadi March-II#Incident, after or instead of deletion, would not be inappropriate (although that section could do with a better title that is outside the scope of this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That section has now been renamed, so any redirect should point to

2022 Azadi March-II#Sadaf Naeem death. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Simple mentions in sources, where most are about her accidental death.--Tysska (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her death was an tragic incident and got one time media coverage as sudden news or event happened but not significant. There is no space on media and in journalistic community about her work before and post death.M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per
WP:LASTING. Her death received quite some media coverage and attention by the political class and I have also read that her death is seen as having been caused by some sort of sensationalism (rat race) by the media. Her death might encourage the improvement of the working conditions for journalists. There can be added a section reception to the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added some phrases on the law now, and I found quite some more that could be added like the refusal of her husband to press charges, the aim of trying to get an exclusive interview from Imran Khan right before she died etc. and there is likely to be more around.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Paradise Chronicle. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her death was unfortunate and tragic, but that does not make her notable. If it becomes notable, for instance by improved working conditions for the press or an award is named after her, then it should be reconsidered, but those things haven't happened. As of now, it's an accident that involved somebody who happened to be a non-notable journalist. Ira Leviton (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
2022 Azadi March-II#Sadaf Naeem death. I can see someone searching for her name. The redirect allows the information to be there with more context. Joyous! | Talk 21:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 19:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Sandra Junasová

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

Bio of a singer who seems to lack notability. The links in the article are mostly dead now though there is one gossip piece about her. I can see she has 165 followers on Facebook and 920 on instagram but I can’t see any in-depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Slovakia. Mccapra (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find anything Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything from this subject. I'm even wondering how this remain as an article on Wikipedia. Non notable actress with no independent source. No any reference is attach to the article.Kasar Wuya (talk) 9:52:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 06:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Microcynicon: Six Snarling Satires

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

Minimal notability demonstrated by article. Completely unreferenced. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Poetry. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: This seems like an important work from a notable Elizabethan playwright, but I doubt there are enough independent sources which analyze this specific poem to justify a full article. Rather, this material could be incorporated into the article on Thomas Middleton. Patr2016 (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is now referenced. It is extensively discussed in "Middleton as Poet", from which I've added a bit to the article, and is the subject of a PhD dissertation (which I just linked as further reading), among others. I could turn up more scholarship on the poem but this is enough for GNG and now all info has a reference. -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding, since "merge" has been floated as a possibility, that I don't think this can be merged into Thomas Middleton without significantly rewriting that article. Not worth doing just for the sake of a merge, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is now within standards. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. It seems nonsensical that we wouldn't cover this somewhere. While it may have been unreferenced at the time of nomination, other editors seem to have had little difficulty finding the kind of sources one might expect the nominator to have discovered in
WP:BEFORE. pburka (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep seems sufficiently referenced now. Merging would be fine, too if a talk page consensus favored it, but not as an AfD-enforced outcome. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks to have sufficient references for the
WP:GNG. Archrogue (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, improvements provide sources which pass
WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aspatos

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

Possible autobio of a Mexican writer and scientist sourced to his own work and some patents. A search for sources shows only wiki mirrors and other individuals with the same name and nothing at all about this subject. Does not pass GNG, WP:NPROF or WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and Mexico. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find anything reliable Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same result as nom. This google scholar profile appears to belong to someone else. [3] -- asilvering (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find relianble sources either. And suspiciously, there is nothing about him on the Spanish Wikipedia, although there are a Mexican politician and a soccer player with the same name. --Suitskvarts (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Doesn't seem to be this GS profile, either [4]. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:GNG. 87.123.39.218 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saitō Chikudō

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

Fails

WP:BIO. Been on cat:nn list for 10+ years. Never been updated. Can't identify a modern reference. scope_creep^Talk 23:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Japan. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is pretty bad ("His Chinese sentences did not have ambiguity." for an example), but the character himself is plainly within encyclopedic scope, provided you look for Japanese references. The WP:ja article cites standard reference works, and for example the kotobank reference site gives another biographical dictionary. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Imaginatorium: How goes it? Thanks for finding these. That is ideal and put paid to this Afd. I wasn't really if sure he was notable. Would you be able to add them to the article itself? scope_creep^Talk 08:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Not a good article, but not so bad as to deserve TNT. I note that there is a Japanese version. Can the English version be improved from that? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is notable. There are French and Japanese version to look at to improve. Though the French one has a tag on its Talk page saying it was at least partly translated from our English version, so it needs to be double-checked. --Suitskvarts (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Japanese entry lists two encyclopedias as sources with a dedicated entry to him. There are several relevant sources for 斎藤竹堂 in Google books and scholar. Fulmard (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MAGIS Italian Jesuit Missions Network

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

Declined prod. Fails

WP:ORG. I found nothing for its English name. For its Italian name, 4 gnews hits and mainly small mentions. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Italy. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete I had a go at looking and couldn't find anything, but I'm not an Italian speaker and Italian newspaper and magazine availability on the internet isn't great. Jahaza (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:OUTCOME; we almost always delete individual or local missions. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, but this is not an individual or local mission. This is an NGO that supports 38 projects in 21 countries [5]. The problem is that we don't have independent sourcing for verification or notability. Jahaza (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender of Alara

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

No evidence of non-trivial coverage in

WP:GNG. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Islam. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One of a series of problematic battle article with dubious sourcing and liberal interpretation. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As this article has been PROD'd and the PROD contested, it is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the Siege of Kalonoros took place the year before and the lord of the castle gave it ten year later, then the dates are really messed up here. Anyway, even the event was real it was too small and local. --Suitskvarts (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This article has basically been rewritten since the nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julie_Meyer

AfDs for this article:

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

Page has been used heavily for both self-promotion and personal attack, with multiple sides repeatedly posting edits from non-neutral points of view. For example, the current article includes a "Legal Issues" section with separate sections on "strings of unpaid bills" and "failures to appear in court" for said unpaid bills, creating a duplicative issue. The page has been used as a laundry list of non-encyclopedic grievances directed toward a figure who, if she meets the notability standards of Wikipedia at all, is barely notable. In other instances, citations for some areas, such as Meyer failing to pay for investments for Dragons' Den, fail to disclose sufficient information to support the negative claim. Other claims include no citation at all, including that Ariadne Capital sold EntrepreneurCountry Global for a three million pound loss in 2016, which appears to be speculative. In addition, the page mentions Meyer's YouTube page being down, which is both not notable and also inaccurate (as of October 25, 2022, see https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFlLzUJUgt4MOAGmR2qXbIA) On the other hand, the page has also been used as a laundry list (i.e., non-encyclopedic content) of what Meyer is investing in, seemingly for purposes of self-promotion, as in the Viva Investments Partners section, which states that "VIP has direct investments in DRIVE Software Solutions Ltd, VASHI, a luxury jewelry company and Autonomous Data Collection (ADC) Limited. VIP has also invested in SPiCE VC, an Israeli fund investing in blockchain companies. Other funds include AnD Ventures, which supports Israeli technology startups, and GEM Funds, an American company supporting private investment in Opportunity Zones and real estate." Meyer's board memberships are also listed, which is not notable information. While the AfD tool is not intended to be used for cleanup, the extensive issues with this page and the tendency of the page to devolve into self-serving edit wars on both sides warrant removal to preserve neutrality on the topic. For example, previous edit logs include highly editorial comments such as "Ariadne Capital and Julie Meyer has a terrible reputation as a scam with great PR. Numerous litigation and judgement against the firm from suppliers and clients. Unverifiable investment record. Planted news articles and circular referencing" and "Removed Bluster and bullshit link as its clearly defamatory and been added to create a negative unbalanced pov," which illustrate the use of the page for confrontation, rather than for encyclopedic, informative purposes.

Comment This AfD was incorrectly placed into the first nomination by @FernDallas:, I have copied it here. No comment on merits of the AfD. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep based on the sources used in the article, including the Telegraph and a few papers from Malta. Legal issues aside, she's covered for GNG. No opinion on the wiki article used to "attack" her; a cursory glance looks ok. Some coverage recently in the Law Society Gazette, so she's still being talked about these days (legal woes/issues happened in 2017); rest is gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and this wiki page was the subject of at least three articles in the press. Some issues with a PR firm. I've re-read the article, it provides sourced quotations and seems neutral in tone. They may not like what it says about her, but "don't do the crime if you can't do the time/deal with the consequences". She's been convicted and sentenced, so it's helpful to have it noted in the article as it's fact now. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also covered recently in Blomberg [6] Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting for the record: It appears that the first AfD under this title was about a different Julie Meyer. --Finngall ^talk 19:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My initial impression is this article may be a candidate for
WP:NPOV-questionable writing, including clearly non-neutral language, but that may be among the least-worst problems with this article. Beccaynr (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Your own recent fireworks of micro-edits amount to an attempt to do a WP:TNT single-handedly, making prior history almost irrelevant and difficult to restore. Just saying.

Deletion. Julie Meyer is not notable. She organises a couple of tiny investor seminars on Greek islands a year, is wanted by law enforcement in a couple of countries, and may have invested small amounts here or there. If any commercial reputation precedes her at all, it is for having sold First Tuesday at the height of the internet bubble, when people could sell hot air (and First Tuesday itself turned out to be worthless a year later). So this is not a case for WP:TNT. It's a case for deletion. There would always be shameless efforts of un-substantiated self-promotion, as there have been over the years, countered by the predictable reaction of other editors with (mostly) substantiated negative facts, followed by white-wash, and so on, back and forth and back and forth. Her only book is in the amazon.co.uk five-digit sales ranks, and not ranked or rated by amazon.com at all. All her Ariadne entities are dissolved, struck off, or otherwise defunct, having not returned any money to investors, and the companies public records show it. That's ok, it happens, but it doesn't make you a notable entrepreneur's champion or investor. The page was self-promotion from day zero, with predictable reactions. In short, a waste of time for editors on both "sides". SargeBK (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I edited the article to try to address unsourced and poorly-sourced information, non-neutral language, and coatrack material. Meyer appears to have written a notable book, and to have been the subject of sometimes tabloid-style coverage related to various contract disputes, and local coverage of court and regulatory proceedings in Malta. The recent suspended sentence for contempt of court has been appealed, as noted in the 2022 Bloomberg source cited in this discussion [7]. There are various brief mentions (e.g. NYT, 2000, WSJ, 2001), a profile in the BBC [8] related to her appearance on the online edition of Dragon's Den, and 2009 WSJ coverage about her post-Dragon's Den business ventures, with some interview. There is also a brief flurry of coverage in 2016-2017 related to a PR firm hired and then sued for issues related to editing the Wikipedia article. On balance, there appears to be weak support for
WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Meyer concerned a different individual with the same name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough coverage about her and her legal issues from reputable sources to support notability. S0091 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cited sources in the article are enough to prove her notability. HCIhistory (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blaisdell, Arizona

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

It's still a rail spot, now the location of a spur running to a TOFC (Tanks On Flat Cars) ramp for the Yuma Proving Ground. Earlier it was another station/siding, but even the sources in the article don't claim it to be a town, and I could find nothing else showing that either. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with its own post office, easy keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A post office is not a town. There were thousands which existed in isolated rail stations or even in people's homes. Mangoe (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that this was anything more than a rail stop. If there was anything else here, there's not enough coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:GEOLAND. Without a reliable source which says that the subject (a populated place) exists, we can't have an article on it. Even if it is/was a populated place GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places and there isn't any evidence of legal recognition. The existence of a post office doesn't mean it was a populated place and doesn't constitute evidence of legal recognition. I can find mentions of it as a railroad structure (e.g. [9] says there was a railroad siding there) but nothing better. Hut 8.5 13:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of evidence this was more than a rail siding. MB

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!} 09:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Little Miss Nigeria

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

Taking this to AFD as PROD is contested. In my opinion, this pageant didn't satisfy

WP:GNG and should be deleted. While there are references to the winner of the pageants, I didn't see any references that show that this particular pageant are notable. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Nigeria. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confused. Why would someone write an article on this? Bearian (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see how this meets
WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to IGN#Subsidiaries and spin-offs. Star Mississippi 16:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vault Network

)

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

It has had no sources since 2006 סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced for a decade and a half is more then enough to cut it loose. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IGN#Subsidiaries and spin-offs where it is mentioned and sourced to a reference. It is a possible search target regardless of whether it is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Timur9008 (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. Pavlor (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm as it doesn't pass
WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 16:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Feifei Yang

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

Fails

WP:MUSICIAN. None of the sources amount to anything much, and I can find nothing better. Edwardx (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 16:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Center for Intercultural Dialogue and Translation

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

Does not appear to satisfy

Iaintbrdpit (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Iaintbrdpit (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage to meet
WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shijak TV

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

Very difficult to discover any notability here. An extremely short article that hasn't improved since 2011 with only a single reference that appears, at first sight, not to mention the subject. Searches reveal nothing that I am able to understand. Albanian speakers may fare better. Fails

WP:GNG on the lack of any sourcing. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Albania. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Any television broadcaster would be presumably
notable. A search of Google News for "Shijak TV"+Albania turns up a few results. Users who are able to search in Albanian may turn up more. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Even in Albania few people have heard of it. It is a small local TV channel, one of many in Albania. For instance, its Instagram page with hundreads of posts has less than 2k followers.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Stay here: This is a small television channel in Albania today but it is one of the first private television channels in this country. Nrt0011 (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.
WP:LOCAL, unless it is nationwide, which is unclear. --Suitskvarts (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete then, I say. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now the headquarters of Shijak tv are in Tirana. 185.200.249.198 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shijak Tv is a little local Albanian Tv Channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.209.135 (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Situation, objective, action, results, aftermath

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

This is not a notable strategy. Looking up sources for the completely unsourced article only found blog posts and self-published help books. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Logic and Business. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Situation: unsourced article for AfD, Objective: Determine notability Action: Delete for lack of sourcing; only sources found are blogs as discussed below. Results: yet to be determined. Aftermath: either deleted or not deleted, resulting in a better wiki experience. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. HR sites discuss it: [[11]][[12]][[13]], but if this model is a thing, then it's supposed to have a creator or a book it came from. --Suitskvarts (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lili Bosse

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

This is a non-notable local elected official. She is only mayor because she is a city councilmember in a city that rotates the office of mayor annually among the councilmembers. Nearly all of the references are to

WP:GNG. On a side note, the article currently reads as a promotional page for this politician, rather than a neutral article. OCNative (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be plenty of non-trivial coverage of her, once you add it all up. Including in Vogue. Many Beverly Hills mayors have articles on Wikipedia, and she seems to have enough press about her to qualify. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the coverage of Bosse extends well beyond The Beverly Hills Courier. For example, I find two articles in a German paper from Berlin with one extended coverage on Bosse,^[1] and a second on her 2014 interactions with the Sultan of Brunei;^[2] the Los Angeles Times also regularly covers Bosse (e.g., ^[3]). Any concerns about tone can be edited and are not grounds for deletion (Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Proquest
.

Proquest
.

Proquest
.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pyrrho the Skipper and DaffodilOcean.
WP:SIGCOV. Sal2100 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With zero input following two, I don't see a third relist helpful. A merger discussion can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 16:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Herrera

Ron Herrera (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)

He is a non-notable person. All of the news articles are related to his presence in the
WP:BLP1E, Herrera should not have an article. OCNative (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 13:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Talkback) 22:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral (gambling)

Admiral (gambling) (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 responding WP:NCORP. Mambo Rumbo (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Admiral is a chain of casinos with over 50 years of history and hundreds of locations, though it was previously under different names. Reliable sources are sure to exist. No
WP:BEFORE diligence has been done. Possibly should be merged with Quicksilver (company), but would need further research to say for sure. Toohool (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed to Speedy Keep. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and the IP below appears to be another of his socks. Part of a rapid-fire mass nomination of gambling companies. Toohool (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poor sourcing. NCORP says: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. --24.138.27.215 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been much expanded since the nomination. This sort of company tends to be publicity-shy, so the coverage could ideally be more in-depth. Nonetheless, with 200 high street gambling venues in the UK as well as gambling websites, it is important that we have an article about it. Edwardx (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Should someone wish to create a redirect to wiktionary, it can be done editorially. Star Mississippi 16:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technosexual

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Technosexual

Articles for deletion/Technosexual (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Technosexual (3rd nomination)

Technosexual (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)

Still appears to be a
WP:NOTDICTIONARY violation. The only non-definition content is trivial mentions. Dronebogus (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary redirect as suggested by Ovinus InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a Wiktionary material. I don't mind redirect, though, too. --Suitskvarts (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Rey de los Habanos (cigar)

El Rey de los Habanos (cigar) (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)

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass
WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Florida. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional article and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No established notability and article seems like it is solely to promote this specific brand of cigars. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Vegas Cubanas

Vegas Cubanas (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)

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass
WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Florida. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the article, the cigar brand existed in 2005-2011 and nothing notable happened during that time. --Suitskvarts (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hirsh y Garcia

Hirsh y Garcia (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)

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass
WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Florida. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail
WP:GNG.--Tysska (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fosenlinjen

Fosenlinjen (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)

~~Seems to be not notable and without any reliable sources Dlerus Us (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dlerus Us (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The present article is rather basic, and there is no corresponding no.wiki article from which it could be improved, however some coverage can be found, such as this article on their Glutra/Nidaros II ferry and a paywalled article about their manager. Both are local coverage but, noting the lack of detail in the article about their Fosen operating area, I am wondering whether an option might be a partial merge into a new Transport section there, as I am guessing the ferries may be important to the area? It would be good to get views from Norwegian-reading editors. AllyD (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this 2019 article about the decision in a commercial law case that the firm had taken to the Norwegian Supreme Court. However, being a party to a legal case does not itself demonstrate
notability. AllyD (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Sock nomination, but leaving to be considered on its merits. MER-C 09:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient. Star Mississippi 16:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Entertainment Group

Fortuna Entertainment Group (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)

Spam. Remove according to WP:NCOPR, and reliable sources Mambo Rumbo (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is no spam. This is a legitimate article about an existing corporation. See the company listing: Veřejný rejstřík a Sbírka listin - Ministerstvo spravedlnosti České republiky (justice.cz) https://or.justice.cz/ias/ui/rejstrik-firma.vysledky?subjektId=1145305&typ=PLATNY Also try looking it up in Google. Zleeczech (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
single purpose account is here. 24.138.27.215 (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, the article does not meet
WP:NCORP, as it does not have multiple independent sources with significant coverage. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not spam at all, though it became a bit more promotional than it should be after this edit. Former constituent of the
WP:SBEXT. Toohool (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I'm usually the first to suggest deleting corporate spam, but this company is large enough to sponsor the first-tier
WP:RS but it seems highly unlikely this company doesn't pass them. Jdcooper (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
1, 2, 3, 4 examples of independent, non-trivial coverage. Jdcooper (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdcooper no, they are not matching Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The source should be reliable, independent and should have original non-trivial coverage, and not just one news about sponsorship. 24.138.27.215 (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Only one of those is about sponsorship, the other three are about the company changing it's CEO (and that was only from a 2 minute search, on Google News, from the last couple of months). How is that trivial coverage? What coverage are you looking for? Jdcooper (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdcooper another one with CEO you mentioned is prohibited on wikipedia as it its https://www.newstream.cz/zpravy-z-firem/fortunu-povede-victor-corcoran-prichazi-z-irske-sazkovky-paddy-power a paid article (company news or PR press release if you wish). The style is also press-releasy and the author is some generic name. Also, the news is about the new CEO and doesn't cover the significance of the company. https://www.gamingintelligence.com/people/moves/163055-fortuna-entertainment-names-victor-corcoran-as-new-ceo/ this one is also a non-declared press-release. It's easy to spot it. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to understand what is needed for WP:NCORP 24.105.83.215 (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per A.WagnerC the sources provided above aren't reliable at all. Just WP:MILL. 24.138.27.215 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and the IP above appears to be another of his socks. Toohool (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with above; the sources given are just trivial mentions. I don't see much to help GNG. Why use a sock to delete an article, they're usually for ganging-up to keep an article. Who knows. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore
HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not an expert of WP:NCORP in no way but -- based on what you see as weaknesses -- I've added more reliable, external sources for the citations and slightly adjusted the text where needed. Zleeczech (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you've added meet NCORP either. Take a read of
HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. What we have here is a disagreement on whether if someone is notable, it should be kept despite problematic editing, or if promotional editing alone is a reason to delete (and/or SALT, although definitely no consensus to do the latter). It appears that enough editing has been done by established, uninvolved editors that this is somewhere between an N/C and a Keep. Given that it was trending in the latter direction per the improvements that have addressed early concerns, I have closed it as such. Whether this is the best name for Rosenberg's article is a question that can be addressed editorially and doesn't need continued discussion here since there's no realistic closure that removes the content. Star Mississippi 15:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Barry Rosenberg (scientist)

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)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Louis_Barry_Rosenberg
There is an existing COI investigation open regarding this page. Rosenberg has been historically caught doing substantial undisclosed paid promotion on Wikipedia, and the recreation of this article at a different name after the resounding consensus on the last AfD speaks volumes.
He has also been known to use sockpuppets in the past, so be aware of that. If you vote delete, consider also whether or not you think salting is appropriate given the history.
That said, there may genuinely be an argument that he passes
WP:NPROF here. I'll leave that up to the masses. BrigadierG (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. BrigadierG (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite. A lot of the content in Academic career and research and Other ventures looks fishy to me, like every single possible thing he did happens to be included. I don't think he's notable enough to need that big of a Other ventures section, and the Academic career and research could be trimmed down to just the relevant bit about the "Swarm AI" technology. I think the article should be about 5-6k bytes, because he doesn't seem notable enough to match the size of the current article. RPI2026F1 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep meets
WP:BIO per in-depth coverage from Forbes, Bloomberg, BBC and Forbes Japan. SmartSE (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt on the grounds that
those articles are themselves justifiable. The puff-piece tone of that corporate coverage makes me doubtful they would be very useful sources there, either. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

It's probably unclear from my nomination where I stand on this, so I'll make it clear: Delete and salt as nominator per the extremely bad faith behaviour of creating the article under a different name intentionally to avoid attracting attention following previous
WP:INHERITED. BrigadierG (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. In addition to the sources found by SmartSE, the subject has a stellar citation record. We usually consider a scientist notable if they have an h-index of 20, a few articles with >100 citations, and something like 2000 citations total (depends a bit on the field). This guy has over 48,000 citations with an h-index of 128 and more than 100 publications with over 100 citations each. Yes, the article is not very good and there is abuse and promotionalism. I understand that people want to apply a nice dose of TNT, but salting is definitely out of the question given the clear notability of this person. The article needs careful editing and then watchlisted by multiple editors), not deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Delete, per DGG below. --Randykitty (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: That h-index includes mostly patents which I don't think is typical. I couldn't find a way to exclude them and I'd be interested to know if anyone else can. SmartSE (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's indeed unusual. Pinging DGG, to see what he makes of this. --Randykitty (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can exclude patents from normal Google Scholar searches, but maybe not from profiles. So just search for his name [14] instead of using the profile. Usually the results come out in close to citation-count order. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is salting out of the question, when anything that might be worth writing about could be covered in an article on a company or the technology itself? XOR'easter (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't salt an article on somebody who is notable, even if the current article would get deleted based on TNT. If the bio of this notable person is to be included elsewhere, then a redirect would be needed. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But "Louis Barry Rosenberg (scientist)" isn't at all a plausible search term, and I haven't seen anything in any of the sources provided (or found via searching) that I would consider necessary biographical information. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the dab isn't necessary, but it was my impression that it was proposed to salt every possible iteration. As for biographical details, thaat is often minimal in the case of scientists, but info on their careers is usually easier to find. --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning keep. Excluding patents, the top papers seem to have GS citations of 797,381,244,[148],[147],138,[125],120 (the ones in square brackets might not be traditionally published). The highly cited papers are mainly from the early 1990s. Also having hundreds of patents with hundreds of citations must count for something, surely? Open to arguments either way; this profile is not the usual. Also pinging David Eppstein whose expertise might be relevant. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per
WP:SIGCOV based on the coverage in the sources mentioned above by SmartSE. The article should likely be moved to "Louis Rosenberg (inventor)" or "Louis B. Rosenberg." TJMSmith (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and California. TJMSmith (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a clear conflict between those wanting to Keep this article and those advocating Delete & Salt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Randy that he is clearly notable. But lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. An even stronger reason is advertising, particularly self advising. This is illustrated by the contents: inclusion of his non notable self-published fiction, and very borderline notable film. As for manner of writing, I notice the excessive use of his name., characteristic of press releases and advertisements.. .This counts to me as editing in defiance of our rules, and in a manner such as to degrade wikipedia into a collection of notable puff pieces. I would alss ban as NOT HERE--he is not here to build an encyclopedia but to advertise himself. Possibly after he is removed, [[User:|]] Randykitty}} might write a proper article limited to the science and without the puffery. . DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Stellar 128 h-index, hundreds of publications and patents and many citations. I also saw that SmartSE and TJMSmith have already worked on the page and improved it significantly, and now the page does not look very promotional. The best action here would be to further improve the current page. --Suitskvarts (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article consistent with
disruptive edits in the future. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt, as self-promotion based on sources with promotional tone. Ignoring the
WP:COI policy justifies salting. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I am surprised to see so many delete and salt votes when some editors (including myself) have started to perform a
WP:HEYMANN. Much of the tone has been improved...although there is still room for further improvements. TJMSmith (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and improve. He clearly passes WP:GNG and probably WP:NACADEMIC because he is getting literally thousands of annual citations in major journals. The promotional tone is a valid concern, but at this point enough of the article meets WP:NPOV that WP:TNT seems like overkill. Chagropango (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist given that this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not sure why everyone is throwing
poorly-written but notable articles. It's me... Sallicio!
^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article has been deleted previously. Funcrunch (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Daubert standard (edit conflict destroyed my longer argument). Bearian (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Maybe I'm just thick, but that makes about as much sense to me as if you had said delete per Special:Random. SmartSE (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse:, I was thinking the same thing. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Bearian's reference to Daubert is that we need to "exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence". In the lead of this article, for example, there are two dubious assertions stated as fact:
...that he is a scientist. His degrees are in mechanical engineering. The only reference I have found that labels him as a scientist is his Lifeboat Foundation bio, which appears to be a c.v., and gives his title as "Chief Scientist" of his own company, Unanimous AI. As
Groucho
said, "Close, but no cigar."

...that "He was the Cotchett Endowed Professor of Educational Technology at the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo from 2005 to 2011." He may have been at Cal Poly from 2005–2011(see the bio cited above), but he was not the Crotchett Professor that entire time, as his colleague Shirley Magnusson held that honor from 2004-2006, and there do not appear to be any mentions of him in official school records as to when he held the endowed professorship. A Cal Poly College of Engineering 2005-2006 Annual Report, page 17 just announces, "Other new faculty included Bently Endowed Professor Julia Wu and Assistant Professor Lou Rosenberg", and a 2007 "Top 20 under 40" article, page 32 doesn't mention the endowed professorship.

So clearly the lead is inaccurate, and looks a lot like puffery. Every cited fact in the article needs to be checked against a
WP:NPOV standards. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
reliable sources
that discuss Louis Rosenberg:

Silicon Valley's metaverse will suck reality into the virtual world — and ostracize those who aren't plugged in, Business Insider

We Can See the Future from Here, Popular Mechanics

AI that picked Oscar winners could predict the next US president, Engadget

Can AI solve information overload?, CIO

21st Century Crime: How Malicious Artificial Intelligence Will Impact Homeland Security

Seeing the future: how AI predicts elections and horse races

The dark side of the metaverse: this warns the father of Augmented Reality

Bees inspire swarm-based AI 119.17.145.98 (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,
WP:GNG pass. Per Malay Mail, he developed the first augmented reality system in 1992 for the US Air Force research labs. Additional coverage to support the page [15], [16], [17]. HCIhistory (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Trash talk. History is under the redirect if folks want to perform the merge. Star Mississippi 15:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talking shit

Talking shit (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)

Most of these references are about shitposting, not the act of talking shit. I think a soft redirect to Wiktionary may be appropriate, but otherwise delete - there is no way this particular phrase is worthy of a whole encyclopedia entry. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)(sock strike. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per
WP:NEOLOGISM. Valereee (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge, with trash talk, as a synonym thereof. There are reliable sources that discuss this, such as [18], but this is just a British variation of the term. The suggested target is unduly biased towards its use in sports, but that is a separate matter. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to trash talk. I don't see any harm done by doing this as both have the same meaning. Center, Centre.... Color, Colour... ect.. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to
a reasonable outcome. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Trash talk, a reasonable outcome to a relatively synonymous term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No harm to anyone wanting to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State machine (LabVIEW programming)

State machine (LabVIEW programming) (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)

Tutorialization to a degree, Not at all understandable to a relatively broad audience. Not encyclopedic material. Does not describe the functionality, reasoning of existance, or its use in history in this article. Would be better for WikiBooks. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT per comments below. KEEP: notable within field and passes
~~AfD is not for cleaning up articles.~~ It's me... Sallicio!
^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify how this article passes Notabilty. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here, and here. I don't know anything about it, but apparently it's academically-known in the physics departments of multiple universities, is used in multiple locations, including the Large Hadron Collider, the world's largest particle accelerator. The article is, without a doubt, poorly-written, and definitely needs someone (who knows about this) to clean up the verbiage and make it more encyclopedic. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This'd be fine for a WikiBook on LabVIEW programming, but there's already a Finite-state machine article describing the concept. Adam Sampson (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Sampson, I don't know anything about the subject. Is the article the same thing as a Finite-state machine? Or is it a type? Is a finite-state machine to state machine as "automobile" is to "chevrolet?" If it is the latter, then it seems it would still be notable on its own. If it is the former, perhaps it would be best to merge any relevant information that is not already covered in the primary article. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is describing how to use LabVIEW's primitives to build a simple finite state machine, so it's a worked example of what the FSM article is describing, not a different concept - programmers often just say "state machine" instead of "finite state machine". Adam Sampson (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems
WP:NOTGUIDE would apply with a redirect. Someone who knows about the subject could summarize it, and place it appropriately in the primary article. It's me... Sallicio!
^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Legend 1990

Ghost Legend 1990 (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 indication of notability. No reviews found. All previous citations were dead links and film database sites. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Hong Kong. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A
WP:GNG. VickKiang (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Please kindly review the newly referenced links during the discussion made by the ediotr (-Shane At Work) who is also the original party who had created the article out of interest and experience after having watched the film in which the links were believed to be legit supporting sources for the newly edited article. -Shane At Work (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please consider relating the link(s): ^[1] as the characters and synopsis/plot are relatable to the experience derived from the film as the originality was purely created from my interest to expand the contribution. Requesting for a chance to keep the article for future readers' reference and that would be great. Furthermore, it has been reviewed in a blog by somebody who actually share the same perspective as the editor regarding the movie's experience, in which the storyline can be supported under the link .
Apologies but two routine non-
WP:RS) doesn't really help with notability, still, thank you for your efforts in creating the article and working to retain it. VickKiang (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Appreciate the prompt reply, but the editor of the original does and still hope for the article's originality and rather fresh information (be it sourced or unsourced) be expanded in the future with the relevant
WP:SIGCOV given the time in the future by public viewer(s) as one might believe expansion is needed for new articles that have existed in actuality from viewers' film experience and concern. -Shane At Work (talk
), 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Could it be possible if you could demonstrate which sources pass
WP:SIGCOV? Further, while I understand that you would like other viewers who watched this film to find a relevant article on Wikipedia, that's not a convincing argument to keep the article. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your reply. Some changes have been made to the reference - source from webpage presumably relevant as a
WP:RS) such as a blogspot, but a film publisher and company. Please review the link as follows-^[2]. Thank you.-Shane At Work (talk
), 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, but I remain unpersuaded on that these meet
WP:NFILM, To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database, I would argue that it's a IMDb-like database). Similarly, the second is also an unreliable database with a non-SIGCOV plot overview, cast listing, and linking to IMDb and Douban, two user-generated non-RS sources. I am unconvinced that these meet notability requirements and stand by my delete vote, Donaldd23 would you agree? Still, I appreciate your efforts, let's respectfully disagree and many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for the reply. However, i just found a site which to my surprise, is another Wikipedia, but in Chinese by which the details within further stretches the production detail, cast list, but synopsis awaited to be filled up only. Regardless of changes made or edited, still it would be nice for you to at least give this article a go since i can also relate and possibly translate the article page from English to Chinese in the future for the other Wikipedia variation of the same title? also reaching to Donaldd23 -Shane At Work (talk), 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The Chinese Wikipedia has just a single database ref, so it's not much better. VickKiang (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with VickKiang...the sites mentioned are not enough to pass notability requirements. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ghost legend., 維基百科. "捉鬼合家歡II 麻衣傳奇". Retrieved 5 November 2022.

Good day. Noted with many thanks from the both of you.
WP:SIGCOV. Many thanks for the advice. Appreciate it.-Shane At Work (talk
), 5 November 2022 (UTC)

References

^ Legend, Ghost. "麻衣傳奇 Ghost Legend (1990)". 香港影庫 HKMDB. 香港影庫 - Hong Kong Movie Database. Retrieved 4 November 2022.

^ linen legend., The Legend of the Linen, Ghost Legend. "《麻衣傳奇》 - 1990/11/16 上映. MovieCool 華文影劇數據平台電影、連續劇、影人". MovieCool. cloudeep innovation,inc.co. Retrieved 5 November 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Delete per
subst:AFII}} template is intended for use on user talk pages, not in articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and Refine - according to the source(s) produced, the page is being "heavily tried" on with efforts for further improvement, as on-going searches are being conducted. Time needed to further improve reference (s) in order to support its reliability. Hoping for a chance for amendments since Ghost Legend 1990 is a redirect Ghost Legend 1990#Refences and Honorable Mention. -Shane At Work (talk),7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shane At Work: You voted "keep" then "keep and refine", which could be misleading to others. IMO you should either strike your duplicate vote or make sure in your second voting comment that you are elaborating upon the previous vote of keep. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bzip3

Bzip3 (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)

Very interesting article, but it does not seem to pass
WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello, thanks for the review! The article I wrote was mostly inspired by the LZ4 wiki article, I also had a look at some other pages (particularly QUAD, bzip2...). It's generally hard to find second degree references to computer software - for instance, five of the fourteen references on the LZ4 article link a primary source (the author himself), compared to three out of sixteen on the bzip3 article. I could try to look for more sources if that's desirable; I'm not that well accustomed with the project. --Dieterw1999 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. MarioGom (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete (maybe move to draft or userspace) - I think we can acknowledge that there was effort in creating the page, however there is nothing on the page or that I can find to show any significant reliable sources have written about it. Sadly that's the bottom line for deciding whether we keep pages here. Maybe things will change and there will be significant coverage in the near future and the page can return to mainspace. JMWt (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a new compression tool that does not yet have significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article's subject lacks significant coverage in third-party sources and fails
WP:TOOSOON. - Aoidh (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with
bzip (which is currently a redirect to bzip2). Thparkth (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

There's nothing
WP:DUE to merge, and bzip2 and bzip3 are similar, but distinct things. - Aoidh (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Not sure where undue weight comes into this. Obviously bzip2 and 3 are distinct, but they are also closely-enough-related topics that we can choose to write about them together if we like. I'm quite sure that if someone had boldly done what I propose (making
bzip an article about all generations of bzip, including the bzip3 content) instead of creating bzip3 this wouldn't be at AfD. Thparkth (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Undue weight comes into this because within the context of bzip2, there are no reliable sources discussing bzip3, it is not relevant to bzip2 in any way, and no reliable sources support the idea that it is. It is a different implementation of the Burrows–Wheeler transform and has a similar name but is not the same program, is not a continuation of or successor to bzip2. I have to very strongly oppose any effort to make a "list of programs called bzip" which is all such an article would be. bzip2 exists as an article because it is notable, whereas bzip3 is not (I don't know whether bzip is notable but I can only assume it is not). Given the complete lack of reliable sources discussing this article's subject, there is nothing worth merging, especially into a different but similarly named article when it's not relevant to that article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the topics should be combined into a single article is an editorial choice. There is no
WP:DUE issue here. Bzip3 is not an alternative viewpoint compared to bzip2. Thparkth (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Given that bzip3 isn't even an aspect of bzip2, the amount of information the bzip2 article should dedicate to this marginally-related subject is exactly same as its prominence in reliable sources: zero. - Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge, as bzip3 is unrelated to bzip2. The bzip2 toolis a long running and established active project which is widely used. The bzip3 project is new, has an entirely different team, and is only related to bzip2 in that the design goal was to outperform bzip2. The name of the bzip3 project is kind of a name hijack. --Mvqr (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or otherwise move out of article space, without prejudice against bringing it back if it catches on. Right now, it's
WP:TOOSOON. I also second Mvqr's argument against merging. 3mi1y (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric life in popular music

Prehistoric life in popular music (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)

Cute and well-researched list, but really this is indiscriminate
WP:LISTCRITERIA in any way, and I doubt there are any sources describing these entries as a group... it's one list of any songs with dinosaurs in the title, and another list of any albums with dinosaurs on their covers. Richard3120 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:IPC; no credible claim of significance as a list topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:LISTCRUFT, just a list of songs or albums that contain the word dinosaur or dinosaur related themes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to
(non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Kiss: The Remix

Kiss: The Remix (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 coverage on page and I couldn't find anything else beyond this Japan Times article. Japan-exclusive release with unimpressive charting in that country. Redirect to Carly_Rae_Jepsen_discography#Remix_albums. QuietHere (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Japan, and Canada. QuietHere (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kiss (Carly Rae Jepsen album).TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works too. QuietHere (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:NALBUM. SBKSPP (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge - to Kiss (Carly Rae Jepsen album) per above reasons. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kiss (Carly Rae Jepsen album). I do not see enough evidence of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. I believe the album article would be a more useful place to store this information over a redirect to the discography list. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Ojukwu

Honey Ojukwu (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)

Honey Ojukwu is not notable. I suspect this article is a paid job because the page creator accepted the fact he has a Conflict of interest and paid editing works before appealing for an unblock. None of the awards has she won or being nominated are notable. Her references could also be from a conflict of interest with the way the headlines are written because she’s also a media person. It’s a suspect that her mission is to get verified on instagram and Twitter using wikipedia as a reference and that is why she stated her Wikipedia link on her instagram and Twitter profile here https://instagram.com/honeyojukwu and here https://twitter.com/theradiolioness . This is what few people do with their mentality but we get caught someday. Gabriel (talk to me ) 12:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Radio, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 12:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albie xo and Techwritar who seems to be a sock haven’t edited wikipedia since 2020 after their contribution together on the article.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 13:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student Friendship award isn't notable, not sure what the other one she won even means. Most mentions on the web appear PR stuff. COI also likely indicates this isn't notable. If you can't prove your notability using external sources, getting someone to do it for you isn't the best idea. There is coverage in Vanguard News ("not every pretty woman sleeps around", "not waiting for a man to take care of her needs" along those lines), which is very much tabloid stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree b. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Gabriel601: Where on the linked page has Techwritar "accepted the fact he has a Conflict of interest and paid editing works"? I have looked, and find them saying "I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia". More generally, please link to diffs, not whole talk pages, when making such claims. I'm also unclear what is meant by Her references could also be from a conflict of interest with the way the headlines are written because she’s also a media person.. Please clarify. Linking to Wikipedia from social media profiles is not a reason for deletion. Finally, I see no justification for the claim that the Nigeria Music Choice Awards are not notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To those uncreated wiki pages you linked on her articles. If they were already in existence would have been a good reason for a keep that she has worked in Notable radio stations but still doesn’t still makes her notable because their a lot of OAP as well like her who ain’t known but working for Notable radio stations, that doesn’t makes them suitable to be on Wikipedia. Not all radio stations are notable and that could be the reason they haven’t been created. So linking an uncreated page on her article I don’t think that adds any useful contribution to be keep. The uncreated page
Nigerian so I know more of this entertainment and hope my clarifications are now clear to you. --Gabriel (talk to me ) 12:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I see you from England. That’s nice and I hope to be in London some day lol. Kudos to your country artist ArrDee on his debut album Pier Pressure (mixtape) which I love listening --Gabriel (talk to me ) 13:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not substantiated your claim about what Techwritar said

You have not explained your "references could also be from a conflict of interest..." comment

The addition of links—red or blue—to the article in question is irrelevant to its notability

Google search results are not the arbiter of notability

Your nationality and your original research give you no special authority in this debate

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note also Ojukwu won the 2020 ELOY Award for "On Air Personality of the Year", which itself makes her notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a celebrity and see no reason my page should be deleted --Ojukwu754272 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Honey Ojukwu is a big OAP in cool fm ph city. --OjukwuManager (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:OjukwuManager has referred on their talk page to Honey Ojukwu as "my client". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who is turns out to be a sock of the filer of this AfD.... Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: and salt this is UPE from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ojukwu754272 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: How do you reach that conclusion? If anything, this appears to be an attempt to use socks to ensure deletion of an artcile on a notable subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing It's quite bizarre. It looks like a UPE sockfarm has fallen out with one of its members. That suggests to me that, if the person is notable then someone else should create the article. I despise UPE and see every reason for neither side to benefit 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 14:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm confused. The nominator (who thinks it should be deleted) has sock puppets who claim it should stay. Regardless, there are WAY too many issues going on here. The article needs to be speedily deleted. An uninterested user can rewrite from scratch if need be. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 14:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The socks will do that sometimes, using one sock to make another sock look back, therefore making the first sock appear to be a real live person. "Why would a sock argue with another one?", quaint, but still happens. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prob delete - I can't find much that suggests notability and the page is no real help. So I'd say soft delete until/unless someone can recreate with better sources if/when they exist. JMWt (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find evidence that
WP:GNG is met. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G12 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rathwa hut

Rathwa hut (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:COPYVIO from here. Non-notable in itself; however, redirect, rewrite (to remove copyvio), and merge to Rathwa. It's me... Sallicio!
^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 14:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SallicioThe discussion must be closed, the article has been deleted. Tysska (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPercept Technology

IPercept Technology (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 article is written like an advert, which of course is a reason to improve not delete it, but I am unable to find suitable sources. The sources currently used in the article are listicles and lightly rehashed press releases; I can't find anything giving the depth of coverage required by
WP:NCORP. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I took a look in w:sv:Mediearkivet, which collects a lot of Swedish newspaper articles from the last couple of decades, and IPercept Technology seems to be treated as an interesting, up and coming company showing promise, something beyond your average run-of-the-mill startup – included in lists of hot companies to keep an eye on – but I couldn't find any proper sources to actually build an article from. /Julle (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the material I've found that attempts to provide extended coverage of the company are pressreleases/adverts. Judging by NCORP/CORPDEPTH there is no notability at this time. Also, per
WP:TOOSOON. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Since no one has been able to identify the necessary sources. Would have liked to keep this article, but I have not been able to find anything myself. /Julle (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devilraj (musician)

Devilraj (musician) (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)

Can't find any in-depth coverage on this person, fails
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete From reading this page, it came to know that he has not done a single notable work,not pass
~~WP:RS. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)~~[reply
]

User has been blocked as a sock. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given sources are all self-published imdb or spotify profiles. I previously removed other junk/fake SEO sources, which is a bad sign. Could not find anything else in a search, except the usual scraper or promotional directories. Nothing at all to build a BLP on. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Kuru's assessment of the sources. Person does not appear to pass
WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
WP:CANVASS this AFD by asking me on my talk page to vote keep. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Josh and Kuru above. One of my userscripts (Can't remember which one) will highlight refs with a red highlight if they're unreliable. Every single one on that page was red. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails
WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
snowstorm soon. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs)
18:02, 4

November 2022 (UTC)
*Delete can not Deepth Coverage proof a notable Musician not pass
WP:NMUSICIAN. D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC) -strike sock -Beccaynr (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Like the above, this fails
sources are usable. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 19:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamsa and Bar Kamsa

Kamsa and Bar Kamsa (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 subject is a religious tradition with a fairly weak notability case, appearing almost exclusively on religious websites and with only passing mentions in independent reliable sources. References in reputably published books or scholarly texts are scant. Non-trivial coverage appears hard to come by in independent (emphasis on that again), reliable, secondary sources. The volume of academic mentions (just two on Google Scholar) does not suggest it is particularly significant from a historical or religious perspective, whether in relation to the events it is said to be about, or for eschatological purposes.
Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is an article about an legend concerning the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem, itself an historical fact. The story was published some 1500 years ago and the original text is in print and available online in the original and in translation. The article does not assert historical accuracy to the story, nor is there any miracle involved. There is nothing controversial here. The story is widely cited as a parable of the dangers of baseless hatred and is covered in the Jewish Encyclopedia and several other referenced sources, including an article in Psychiatric Times. Indeed a Google search on the article title produces some 7 pages of relevant links.
WP:INDEPENDENT summarizes "Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved." There is no possibility that any of the modern texts have a connection to the original author(s) from a millennium and a half ago.--agr (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The nomination is not related to the parable being fictitious, which is somewhat needless to say. It was merely based on the limited non-trivial sourcing. Nevertheless, a hat-tip to you for your expansion on the sourcing, furnishing of the page with inline citations and, in particular, finding of the Jewish Encyclopedia entry, which is the most solid source so far.
Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
"The nomination is not related to the parable being fictitious, which is somewhat needless to say." Except that when you prodded the article you wrote "The subject is a fictional tale of tenuous notability...".

To be frank, you seem to have difficulty with understanding the concepts of notability and independence as applied to Jewish religious subjects. This is another in a string of attempted deletions of articles about Jewish religious subjects that turn out to have significant sourcing. Jahaza (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep this is a widely discussed story found in both the Talmud and midrash and which has an entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia and other academic discussion [19]. The story remains widely referenced in even contemporary discourse.[20][21][22]. Jahaza (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The legend is holds a significant place in rabbinical literature. Thanks ArnoldReinhold for expanding the sourcing—I'll add that Encyclopaedia Judaica also has an entry on the subject. Ploni^💬 15:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added the Encyclopaedia Judaica reference.--agr (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources that have been added to the article demonstrate notability, especially Encyclopaedia Judaica 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Killing of Takeoff

The result was Merge to
PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Killing of Takeoff (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 a reason to have an entire article focused to this as of yet. This could quite easily be merged in to Takeoff TheEpTic (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We're currently having a discussion as to whether there are sufficient reliable sources (per BLP) to even report his death in the main article, so there's no way that a whole article on his death meets GNG. If consensus forms that there are sufficient reliable sources to report the death, then possibly merge. WJ94 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, there doesn't seem to be enough details that could warrant an article about this topic Gamertrash14 (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.
talk) 12:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge without redirect to Takeoff (rapper) per nomination. News reports are starting to appear in reliable sources in Google News, but there's nothing yet to suggest that more than a few paragraphs will be needed to describe this sad event. Storchy (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems pretty clear cut from this discussion that even if there is enough appropriate sourcing its fairly easily covered in the main article, no need for a spinoff. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - not enough, and probably won't ever require a separate article. Anarchyte (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge When all information has been confirmed by the police corps in Houston we can Merge it in his main article Takeoff. --AlwaysNick (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then open your eyes, TheEpTic. Jokes aside, it isn’t really that notable enough for its own separate page. To be fair, pnb should’ve had a page like this if a page like this for takeoff exists. Wikieism (talk) 7:46 November 1, 2022 CST

Merge with Takeoff (rapper): per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 12:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his death has not been officially confirmed yet. Most reliable sources, including news sites (that aren’t TMZ) and the authorities haven’t reported it yet, and most of this seems to be coming out of social media hubbub. We don’t actually know if he is dead or alive, and right now, at this moment in time, providing information on Wikipedia that suggests a solid answer is a huge insult to the integrity of the site, and incredibly disrespectful to the very real people involved in this incident. חביתוש ~ Havitush (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Houston police have confirmed a single fatality at the location and time of the incident. Reliable news sources such as like The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Rolling Stone, and Fox News have all reported the incident, noting the fact that the fatality is reported to be
(talk) 13:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think a flat-out deletion is the best course of action here. You make great points, but plenty of reliable sources have covered Takeoff's death, as seen above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mere: Per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Takeoff (rapper). A new section titled Death with this info. GR86 (📱) 13:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can easily be covered in main article. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Takeoff (rapper) per nom. Spiderpig662 (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Takeoff (rapper) per nom. Timothytyy (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need for it's own article, there isn't enough information to warrant it. ollyhinge11 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No way is this notable enough for its own article.
^{• whaddya want? •} 14:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. Article creation premature; amount of info that exists, so soon after the event, is slim. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Someone has merged some content from this page to Takeoff (rapper), so if consensus is to delete/merge, this page should be kept as a redirect to provide attribution. WJ94 (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nom. Enough said. mediafanatic17 talk 15:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without redirect to Takeoff (rapper). No need for a separate article. GeorgeJack (talk)

Merge without redirect; details are not confirmed, currently not distinct and noteworthy event to justify as standalone article. — Safety Cap (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the answer is obvious, merge without question. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 15:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I agree with previous users that, as of now, details are sparse and unconfirmed. A determination can be made in the future if this article becomes necessary again or can remain part of Takeoff (rapper). Fireboltsilver (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and snow close. nableezy - 15:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Tragic, but highly common in hip-hop, unfortunately. We don't have an article on rappers who have been murdered for nothing. ColorTheoryRGB CMYK 16:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete too damn soon, it’s not even been 18 hours it doesn’t need its own article at this time when we don’t even know full details. Trillfendi (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge - This article can easily be merged with Takeoff. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge. The “Death” section in Takeoff’s article is enough to cover his tragic demise. Rest in peace to him. Vida0007 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 16:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an event, it's sadly run-of-the-mill, and you would be hard-pressed to find any "Killing of" articles for the many other rappers who have been "offed" in the last year. These types of article generate a lot of public comment accusing Wikipedia of trying to be a newspaper, which we know it isn't. Let the newspapers write the factual and/or speculative articles about deaths like this. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article should be kept but the title should be changed to be about the public shooting, not "the killing of." This article needs more development but it should be its own article. SparklingSnail (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Per
WP:SIZERULE Takeoff (rapper) is nowhere near needing to be split. nableezy - 18:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per nom. Lnkvt (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need to be an article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not enough is known about the killing to warrant an article. No prejudice against recreating if the section is long enough, or if the killing ends up becoming a generation-changing event with books, films and documentaries like Tupac and Biggie. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Chloe0303 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom@Chloe0303 2001:5B0:47C3:4C08:6948:6A6:565D:B893 (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:SNOW. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge; not enough content to justify an entire article; copy content over to main page.--Zehaha (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
. . .talk) 19:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Article is substantial and sourced enough to be kept. The killing is this generation's
Murder of The Notorious B.I.G., and the details are substantial to the point where it can be broken off into its own article. RIP, this one hurt. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy merge Article does not need to be deleted but does not seem notable in it's own right unlike some other killings of rappers. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper as some other people have said, and so it should be merged with the article Takeoff. CIN I&II (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Takeoff's page; This article on its own does not warrant an entire page to itself Agent123456789 (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Takeoff (rapper), per above XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Takeoff (rapper) Lilsusanalex (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge. It's possible that the death of Takeoff can have substantial details added as we learn more, but we can always restore the article later in such event.
WP:CRYSTALBALL exists for a reason. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge Per others. If and when the death is able to be a standalone article, a different title is definitely needed to either "Death of Takeoff" (per pretty much any standalone death article) or "Murder of Takeoff" (per pretty much any murder victim's standalone page). It does seem to be
snowing--Rockchalk7 17 23:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Why is this still open? Clearly a SNOW merge at this point.
^{• whaddya want? •} 23:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Merge: Per all above comments, speedy merge because a consensus has clearly been met. Spilia4 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now, not enough info has come out to warrant a separate article. RIP. Owellorthanothy (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article, he is not famous enough to have separate article to his death. Nag-Eedit si Mang Robert (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mayors and lord mayors of Parramatta. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine Wearne

Lorraine Wearne (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)

Does not meet notability J2m5 (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how notable is the "lord mayor" of this town/suburb? Appears to be a borough of Sydney, but I'm not up to speed on Australian geographical entities. Oaktree b (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Parramatta is a large city in Western Sydney. The correct terms are "council" or "local government area." Local government figures rarely get Wikipedia articles. The only 21st century local gov councillor in NSW I can think of that has a Wikipedia article is Clover Moore, and she's been the Lord Mayor of Sydney for the last 20 years, plus formerly a state politician as well. (Barring councillors that have gone on to be state politicians and vice versa.) No Parramatta councillors (or Western Sydney councillors more generally) have ever gotten a Wikipedia page to my knowledge, I don't see why Ms. Wearne would be an exception hence my nom. She is not particularly notable at all, based on a Google Scholar search, news search, or my uni's lib search.. J2m5 (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - J2m5's comment about Clover Moore being the only councillor with a Wikipedia page is not correct, any search of the categories of councillors would show there are plenty of such people with pages. Regardless of notability or not, in this case there is a clear and appropriate
alternative to deletion that ought to be followed, which is a Redirect to List of mayors and lord mayors of Parramatta. Deus et lex (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Please do not misrepresent statements I have made by oversimplifying. I never said that "Clover Moore was the only councillor with a Wikipedia page." Granted though, I did not do the justice of looking at other examples of councillors which have Wikipedia pages, because in my view this article at its most basic level fails
WP:NPOL.) In any case, the vast majority of 21st century councillors on the "New South Wales local councillors" category are people who went on to take roles in state and federal politics. The exceptions to this are politically important mayors or community activists as judged by the multiple media sources proving their notability to Wikipedia, for instance Frank Carbone or Margaret Henry. Lorraine Wearne fails this test. Redirecting the article to the aforementioned list should mean that other lord mayors have the same treatment. J2m5 (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
And what's the problem with redirecting other Lord Mayors? Don't make assumptions that I am trying to keep the article. Redirection is a valid
alternative that must be considered before deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm totally happy with redirecting other lord mayors, didn't say anything to indicate the opposite :) J2m5 (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:BIO. Coverage is mainly about her making statements as a councillor rather than coverage where she is the subject. LibStar (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - why not redirect? Deus et lex (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per
WP:GNG; see also User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

A Redirect seems reasonable to me.-
KH-1 (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A11 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tick oaT Two

Tick oaT Two (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, fails
WP:A11, but it certainly is a recently made-up and non-notable game. Proposed deletion contested without comment, by one of the new accounts pushing this. Duplicate also created at TickOatTwo. Speedy deleted three times in the last few times at Dutch WP, at nl:Tick oat two. Storchy (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Storchy (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of demonstrated notability. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 127, literally just made up by some random Youtuber. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero sourcing other than self-made posts. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete
WP:CSD#A11. Despite nomination, I think this does qualify, because the article says it is made up by some YouTuber. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I suspect it's for self-promotion? That or a bad ARG. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has a lack of notability and also made up by some random youtuber. Evaxooooof25 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Has
WP:MADEUP all over it. DarkAudit (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete. Made up by a random Youtuber, no indication of notability and probably no credible claims of significance. I've submitted an A11 request, however it might be declined. VickKiang (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tipbet

Tipbet (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 responding WP:NCORP. the sources are mainly press releases, gambling spam websites references, one interview, and other suspicious sources Mambo Rumbo (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malta. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Part of a rapid-fire mass nomination of gambling companies with zero
WP:BEFORE diligence. Toohool (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep unless someone can perform a proper
WP:BEFORE as using the custom reliable source search engine brings up no results for this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pepin Garcia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old Henry

Old Henry (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)

Mostly promotional article that doesn't seem to pass
WP:NPRODUCT; database mentions and promotional material is what I can find online. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Nicaragua. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pepin Garcia, the maker. As of now with zero sources beyond catalogs it doesn't merit a standalone article but I'm not convinced one couldn't be written on the topic, so a redirect to the manufacturer (who is definitely notable) leaves the history intact if someone wants to take another stab at an article thats properly sourced. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; fails GNG, overtly promotional. No sign of real significance outside of the fact that the product exists. Also fine with redirecting to Garcia if there is support for that. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gamesys. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Games

Virgin Games (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 notable by its own. Merge to Virgin Group. Mambo Rumbo (talk)~~ 07:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It doesn't belong in Virgin Group. The article clearly states that the company was sold. As of August 6, 2022, FT.com says Virgin Games is owned by Bally's. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Part of a rapid-fire mass nomination of gambling companies with zero
WP:BEFORE diligence. Toohool (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gamesys, which acquired Virgin Games in 2013, and is now part of Bally's Corporation. Initial search in Wikipedia Library yields 2,015 results, but the first dozen or so are brief mentions in articles that are actually about Gamesys, or articles based on old press releases issued by Virgin Games before it was bought. The article as it stands now has little in the way of meaningful, reliable information that needs to be merged into Gamesys. (I've now updated the Virgin Group template to make it clear that Virgin Games falls in the "Former" asset category.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Cielquiparle makes a very good argument, and the fact that the original nominator was a sockpuppet doesn't really enter in to if the article meets standards or not. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany–Saint Kitts and Nevis relations

Germany–Saint Kitts and Nevis relations (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
Fram (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Also delete Saint Kitts and Nevis–United States relations (only reference is the US Department of State) and every other article on foreign relations of small states then?--Afus199620 (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all relations happens in a multilateral context via the EU, Organization of African, Caribbean and Pacific States or CARIFORUM. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bilateral relations within multilateral organizations are still within the scope of the article, although if an EU-CARIFORUM article existed, it would be best served there. Sometimes, leaders even meet on the sidelines of multilateral events. The question here is
WP:GNG. Pilaz (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a little hard for me. There is actually a lot of good info here. Which embassies serve for relations when the two countries don't have active ones with each other, and the fact that St. Kitts never established relations with East Germany. That said, that info is probably best presented at the Foreign Policy of St. Kitts and Nevis page, so probably merge? --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to where? LibStar (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage in independent reliable source is just not there. Yilloslime (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shehu Musa Yar'Adua. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asabe Shehu Musa Yar'Adua

Asabe Shehu Musa Yar'Adua (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)

trivial local politics. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge to Shehu Musa Yar'Adua (or possibly delete altogether) - subject doesn't appear to have sufficient notability outwith of spouse. I did enjoy the section selfless service though. JMWt (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be more of the puff article than anything. Not independently notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Shehu Musa Yar'Adua. There isn't enough in sources to support a stand-alone article, mostly passing mentions in connection to her relationship with her husband. Also, the article currently misrepresents one story; she was not arrested and tried, someone ELSE was arrested and tried for impersonating her. That should definitely not be upmerged if we do so. --Jayron 32 18:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Danso-Mensah

Peter Danso-Mensah (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC. No professional or international career, no in-depth coverage. De-PRODed based on number of sources without any evaluation of what they actually say. BlameRuiner (talk) 06:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication he was even in a pro game and being called up a couple of times for U20 and U23 is not a strong sign of notability. More importantly, I don't see significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, local Ghanaian coverage already on page is significant in my opinion.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG; sources included in the article are not in-depth and are promotional in nature (e.g., boosting a viral video the subject posted). Jogurney (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TNM Jawad

TNM Jawad (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 entrepreneur - no real coverage beyond a few PR pieces.
KH-1 (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
KH-1 (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

delete. just from the titles of the source alone, it’s pretty easy to tell that the sources are puffery nonsense.
ping me when replying 07:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
He is a renowned entrepreneur and there are hundreds of articles online about him! 2405:201:F004:B0D0:94F:657F:6584:C4D4 (talk) 08:18, 7 February 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!} 08:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs analysis

Needs analysis (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 is a rambling mess supported by only two irrelevant sources.
ping me when replying 06:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:TNT. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Needs analysis? Needs deletion. If this article's subject is notable, this iteration of the article is not a good representation of that. I read the lede several times and I couldn't figure out what the scope of the article is even supposed to be. Needs analysis is the formal process that sits alongside Requirements analysis and focuses on the human elements of the requirements. What? Formal process for what? The human elements of the requirements of what? I shouldn't have to click into Requirements analysis or investigate the lone reference just to get an idea of what the article is even about. That sentence is the lede, which is supposed to summarize the article's content, and unfortunately it does that job perfectly; the article is a mess. It's an essay, an instructional how-to, not a Wikipedia article. Blow it up and start over if the subject is truly notable, but this iteration is unsalvageable. - Aoidh (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As
talk page) 17:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Needs assessment, which appears to be much more thorough (though still messy) coverage of the same concept. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Peters Corner, Arizona

Peters Corner, 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)

Fails
WP:NCORP due to lack of in-depth coverage. Sources are mainly newspaper articles that mention Peters Corner in passing or cover the multiple legal issues that the business experienced; none discuss the topic itself in depth. –dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a named intersection which accounts for a few references to it as a place. Not notable as a business. No suitable redirect target found. MB 20:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angell, Arizona

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Angell, Arizona

Articles for deletion/Angell, Arizona (2nd nomination)

Angell, 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)

This "populated place" does not meet GEOLAND or GNG, and assertions to the contrary in the previous AfD are based on a misunderstanding of the actual guideline. The article conflates three separate things, none of which are populated places or otherwise notable:

Angell Grazing Allotment: This is simply a USFS cattle grazing area.

Angell Focus: This is a Hohokam cultural group that lived in the area, but the source does not indicate a specific settlement at this location.

Angell railroad siding: Newspapers mention this only in the context of a railroad watering/maintenance stop. There is no evidence that this was considered a populated place, and it doesn't have sufficient coverage to meet GNG.

Other arguments include the fact that Angell appears on current and historic official maps. However,
WP:NGEO explicitly excludes maps when considering notability; appearance on a map does not constitute "legal recognition"; and as we've found countless times they are often either mistaken or are actually showing a landmark rather than a settlement. This appears to be yet another GNIS error, as no other source calls this a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 04:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 04:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete All I can find are plats of the turning wye which is still there. I find no reference to a town and the other stuff has nothing to do with this spot. Mangoe (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question here. While it does appear to be gone now, the newspaper mention listed in the source is pretty clear that, at least as published in the 40s, this was indeed a settlement. It's coordinates are exactly as described, a 'small settlement just east of Flagstaff in the lava country'. Is there any reason to believe that newspaper clipping ( https://www.newspapers.com/clip/42208665/angell/ ) is incorrect? --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make the point absolutely here so the comment is not taken as a keep vote, even if the source is accurate its probably trivial (the article its clipped from is just a list going over pronunciation and etymology of some places near Flagstaff). I'm just honestly curious if this is all a big misunderstanding or if it did exist at one time. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to have been a railroad watering/maintenance stop, which included a bunkhouse - I believe that is why there are occasional references to this being a "settlement". That does not make it a populated place. MB 20:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 06:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Jazz Orchestra

Dallas Jazz Orchestra (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 for 5 years. A BEFORE did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 8 of
Grammy Award nominee. I added a ref to verify one of those nominations. Additionally, google books appears to have some coverage. I would imagine Dallas's newspapers would have coverage of the band in reviews, and those would be accessible to someone with subscription access. 4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Can't find anything in the Grammy database which shows they were nominated. See this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to verify the Grammy nominations. In addition to the search metnioned by onel5969 above, I don't see this band mentioned in any of the Wikipedia articles listing the nominees in each Grammy jazz category (for example, Grammy Award for Best Large Jazz Ensemble Album; I checked all the other jazz category articles, too). The article claims that they received a Grammy nomination in 1996 for a 1994 album, which is possible because the eligibility year ran from Oct. 1, 1994 to Sept. 30, 1995. But I found the list of all the Grammy nominees in Billboard magazine (Jan. 13 and 20, 1996), and the only "Dallas" nominated for anything that year was songwriter/producer Dallas Austin. The source cited for the 1996 Grammy nomination is an obituary, published five years after the fact, in a different country; it's possible that this was an error or misunderstanding on the part of the writer. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to change my recommendation to neutral in recognition of the fact that the article has been improved since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Added citations to support notability. There are dozens of articles mentioning DJO in ProQuest and NewsPapaers.com. Although the New York Times was a passing mention, the journalist includes the DJO among highlighted, notable artists, Benny Carter and Flip Phillips, Joe Williams and his Quartet, the Louie Bellson Quartet, Doc Cheatham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleebis007 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while there has been lots of work done on the article, of all the new sources, only one in-depth piece from a reliable source has been added, the one from the Wichita Eagle.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of expansion and sources added which firmly establish notability per
WP:GNG of this non-profit organization. Every single participant in this AfD discussion contributed important insight. Nominator was correct that the article was completely unsourced for too long – which meant it had inherent copvio problems and quality issues – and it was indeed very difficult to sort through numerous article mentions and concert listings, etc., to find the in-depth coverage. 4meter4 was correct that key pieces of coverage turned out to be only accessible to those with subscriber access to certain Texas publications. As both Onel5969 and Metropolitan90 flagged, the Grammy Award nomination was unverifiable and is probably untrue; this is now noted in the Notes section of the article. Kleebis007 managed to find what is actually the most comprehensive, in-depth coverage in the history of the Dallas Jazz Orchestra (which turned out to be paywalled). Anyway, in order of importance, the key pieces of SIGCOV are as follows: the 1998 Dallas Morning News article, "Passion for jazz burns bright as orchestra begins 25th year" (paywalled; link is to abstract on ProQuest); the 2009 article in The Wichita Eagle; the 1976 album review including some band history in D Magazine; and the 1996 Abilene Reporter-News article on Dr. Jazz, which includes several paragraphs about his involvement in the DJO. There are several other sources cited within the article which contribute to notability as well. Kudos to all. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP in view of the almost complete re-write of the article since this AfD was started. Sources that nail down SIGCOV were located behind paywalls and added. Joyous! | Talk 17:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GNG. In addition to The Wichita Eagle, The Dallas Morning News and Galveston Daily News sources both also seem to be reliable and in-depth coverage of the organization. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Achi, Arizona

Achi, 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)

Topo maps show "Achi (site)" at this location, but the closest search results I could find were newspaper articles about an ancient Hohokam village called "Gu Achi". The "Achi" name is not in use and is an unlikely search term, so a redirect is inappropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SMBMovieFan (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per
WP:GEOLAND. Listed as a "small permanent Papago village" in the Arizona Place Names book, plus additional US Bureau of Indian Affairs documentation. References added to article. Definitely not the same as Gu Achi. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per RecycledPixels. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some sources state that Achi is actually Santa Rosa, Arizona. See p. 259 and here. However, this source states that Santa Rosa was called "Kiacheemuck" on a census (p. 405), and Achi's location was "a trifle northeast of kiacheemuck" (p. 338). This would pretty much be the location of Achi on a map, in relation to Santa Rosa. This source from 1920 also places Achi "about a mile to the northeast" of Santa Rosa (p. 14). Both sources indicate this was a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:GEOLAND pass. Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. I realize this is a controversial article but the consensus I see among participating editors is that there are sources that support the notability of this council. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic

People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic (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 significant coverage in independent sources. Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability. Panam2014 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 03:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even with de facto states, national and provincial parliaments are ipso facto notable. That is, it is common sense that this is a core encyclopedic topic (
WP:5P1). Curbon7 (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Is there a guideline that says so? Never mind; it’s irrelevant. The DLNR are neither nations nor provinces. They are military-civil administrations in partly occupied parts of Ukraine during a war. Their Potemkin parliaments are ipso facto not notable. —Michael Z. 16:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason it has no coverage is because it is not a real democratic assembly. The details of a pantomime parliament are not notable, ipso facto or otherwise. Its existence and role can be covered well enough in parent articles. —Michael Z. 21:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to
WP:OSE, the Supreme People's Assembly is not exactly a real democratic assembly either. While obviously this is illegal, this parliament has functioned just as alike any other parliament for the past 8 years. I do not see how this is in principle different than the parliaments for any other partially recognized states. Curbon7 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
this parliament has functioned just as alike any other parliament for the past 8 years
sources? Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Curbon7 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You and I can argue about the assembly’s conduct or its commonalities with some other one, but that is immaterial (and I would not bother). My point is that reliable sources have ignored it, and it is not notable – because, by way of explanation and in my opinion, it is practically meaningless. One could try to counter my point with some independent reliable sources . . . —Michael Z. —Michael Z. 16:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Democratic or not, there are enough independent sources discussing this for it to merit an article.
WP:RGW applies here. JeffUK (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
sources, please? Those in article do not meet WP:GNG. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clear
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The reason stated was No significant coverage in independent sources. Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability, not "I dont like it". Simply saying clear WP:GNG pass while providing no sources is not enough. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK, Devonian Wombat, and Curbon7: AfD are not a vote. You must provide independent sources. Panam2014 (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article already contains such sources such as this and this (Interfax is not the greatest source, but for non-controversial statements such as "this parliament exists and does things" it is clearly sufficient), there is also the litany of sources available at
Al Jazeera. And this was just with a cursory English-language source, a search in Ukrainian or Russian would doubtlessly provide much more. If you think they don't provide SIGCOV then the burden is also on you to explain your reasoning. NOTAVOTE applies both ways. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/rebel-backed-elections-in-eastern-ukraine.html - how many sentences cover the subject?
https://www.interfax.ru/world/464849 - isn't it a news article? Is it even a secondary source? for non-controversial statements such as "this parliament exists and does things" it is clearly sufficient - WP:GNG requires significant coverage.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/8/separatist-run-donetsk-lifts-suspension-on-the-death-sentences - how many sentences there are on a subject? Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Devonian Wombat: interfax is an unreliable source. It must be rejected. Panam2014 (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There are BBC articles about the same thing anyway[23][24]. Mellk (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many sentences do cover the subject there? Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, you are
WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion by repeating the same thing over and over until we get exasperated. Curbon7 (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry if my arguments weren't clear enough for you. The point is that there are sources on a subject provided, but the coverage is not significant enough.
For example, https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2015/09/150905_donbass_purhin_sacked
have 10 mentions of "народный совет", but most of them - 6 - are just names of persons positions - Глава "народного совета" ДНР, должности председателя Народного совета ДНР, руководителя аппарата "народного совета ДНР" and so on. Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is directly about the subject, not a passing mention. Mellk (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it is. But is the coverage significant enough? What can we learn on a topic from the article? Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is something that Ukrainian sources also cover[25][26]. Mellk (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but these 2 are news sources and could not even be considered secondary. BBC is better in this regard but still.
There are some more but the content is not available to me.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6265-222-4_7
https://books.google.cz/books?id=ECBXEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Unrecognized+Entities:+Perspectives+in+International,+European+and&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=parliament&f=false Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what a secondary source is? Mellk (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so what do you want to call them? Tertiary sources? Mellk (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are mostly Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are quite clearly secondary sources. Mellk (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources are not going to be in English. Claiming this is nn because of a lack of Eng sources is fallacious. These sources in Russian/Ukrainian seem pretty good, I think [27][28][29][30]. Don't misunderstand me, I support Ukraine as well, but it is imperative that we keep our biases in check when editing Wikipedia. Curbon7 (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I do think we need to do a better job on that article of reporting the controversy, "disputed" does not go nearly far enough to describe how widely this council is described as 'unrecognised', and that its members have been internationally sanctioned etc. I'll take a look at improving it shortly. JeffUK (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:GNG requires sources that are independent of the subject.
http://papacoma.narod.ru/books/kraev_sborniky/actual_problems_2019.pdf#page=93 - М.В. Руденко, депутат Народного Совета ДНР II созыва, ГОУ ВПО «Донецкий национальный университет» - not an independent source
http://repo.donnu.ru:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/4756/1/3341_A7U0.pdf#page=16 - ГОУ ВПО «Донецкий национальный университет» - not an independent source
https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/11/3/7043027/ - news article
https://dni24.com/ukrnews/11048-novosti-donecka-narodnyy-sovet-prosit-rossiyu-vvesti-mirotvorcheskiy-kontingent.html - news, not reliable. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Above you asked for sources that show "this parliament has functioned just as alike any other parliament for the past 8 years". I provided sources that show as much. Stop moving the goalposts. My original point (that this falls under
WP:5P1 as a common-sense encyclopedic topic) stands. Curbon7 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
So in http://papacoma.narod.ru/books/kraev_sborniky/actual_problems_2019.pdf#page=93 we can read 14 мая 2014 г. был образован первый, в полном смысле этого слова, законодательный орган государственной власти ДНР – Верховный Совет - who made it, and how? Were there any elections? Haven't heard of any. These sources are not reliable and should not be used to prove anything. Now let's concentrate on WP:GNG. Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These sources seem to contradict each other on basic facts, such as whether the “DLNR” are legitimate staes, for example. I find it hard to believe that they can all be considered reliable. I wonder if reliable sources have been citing the papers published in the heavily censored “DNR,” which could demonstrate that they are not
WP:FRINGE. —Michael Z. 14:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
First source is very reliable, at least. Государственный переворот, произошедший в Киеве в феврале 2014 г. ... Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that sources contradict each other is not a reason to delete the article, nor is the fact different sources take different views any indication of their reliability; we should describe the controversy. Anyone following the conflict will expect pro-Russian sources to call DLNR legitimate states, while other sources will not. JeffUK (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As shown above, there are various reliable sources which cover the subject directly and it passes
WP:GNG. Mellk (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry but all sources presented so far were challenged as not being independent or having not enough coverage, as required by GNG. Please correct me by pointing out on sources meeting GNG if I'm wrong. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sources cover the subject in detail. Note: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. You can keep asking how many sentences, but it is already clear GNG is met in this regard. Mellk (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which source you are talking about? Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I mentioned on top of current sourcing. Some more Ukrainian ones which again show significant coverage: [31][32][33][34] Mellk (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally just 3 sentences at all in first 3 sources provided.
The last one https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/war-against-ukraine/donetsk-proclaims-itself-parliamentary-republic-with-two-official-languages-348155.html - again, how many sentences are on subject there? Here are all of them: “The DPR Supreme Council is the parliament of the republic, a regularly operating supreme and only legislative (representative) body of state power in the DPR,” according to the Constitution passed by the DPR Supreme Council on May 14 and published on the republic’s official website. ... The parliament also forms and disbands the Council of Ministers, “save for such resolutions with respect to the DPR Defense Minister, the head of the Security Service and the Interior Minister.” - clear GNG meet? Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a source must write an arbitrary number of sentences to meet GNG. Notice how this is just you who says this? Mellk (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that 2 sentences is not enough to meet GNG still stands, right? Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are four different Kyiv Post articles in total there and you are trying to reduce this to 2 sentences. But I am sure that you with 61 mainspace edits know best about GNG. Mellk (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats right. As said before regarding "four different Kyiv Post articles", There is literally just 3 sentences at all in first 3 sources provided.
A source dedicating 2 sentences on a subject does not cover the subject enough to meet GNG. "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. Manyareasexpert (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except it is the main topic here and this is alongside the other articles that write more. But sure, nothing will ever have enough sentences. Mellk (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some others: [35][36] Mellk (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A second one is just news, but the first one could have some attention: Talk:People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic/Archive 1#Lead change suggestion Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as Curbon7 said, you are just bludgeoning at this point repeating the same thing over and over. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The dozens of reliable journalistic sources cited by previous contributors to this discussion seem sufficient to establish that this institution is a notable fiction. Furius (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donetsk_People's_Republic#Legislature. Keeping this as a separate page does not make sense. Section "Legislature" of page Donetsk_People's_Republic is now empty. Someone probably copy-pasted the content from there into this page. Please place it where it belongs. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clearly a divide among participants plus a vote for a Merge. Maybe another week might help solidify opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not a vote. While many claims there were made about how many sources cover article subject in detail, and many sources were presented, all of them (except one) were challenged as not being independent, or not covering article subject enough to meet GNG. Only one independent secondary source worth discussing was presented so far - https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/28167484.html . Participants are welcomed to discuss the reliability of a blogger from that article, and if it is enough to meet GNG. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop commenting and just let the AfD take it's course. It's clear
what you're trying to do. Curbon7 (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Farm to Market Roads in Central Texas

List of Farm to Market Roads in Central Texas (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)

List of Farm to Market Roads in East Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Farm to Market Roads in North Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Farm To Market Roads in the South Plains of Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Farm to Market Roads in South Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Farm to Market Roads in Southeast Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Farm to Market Roads in the Texas Panhandle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Farm to Market Roads in the Texas Rio Grande Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Farm to Market Roads in Trans-Pecos Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Farm to Market Roads in West Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Better served by a category than a list. Now that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99) has closed as keep, we don't need two sets of lists for the same roads (and this set of lists predates the mass merges that created those lists). Also, these regions are arbitrarily defined. Rs chen 7754 03:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. Rs chen 7754 03:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant to the other lists. Sounder Bruce 03:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per nom, these are redundant to, and less precisely categorized than, the other lists by number. Categories would be a better option as mentioned. Imzadi 1979 → 03:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. No need for these lists by region when we have lists by number. Dough4872 10:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant (and harder to use than the numbered lists), per nom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. A category would be superior to these lists, which, as the nom says, are grouped based on arbitrary geographic areas. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the numeric lists per above and also as somewhat arbitrary, as the definitions of the regions of Texas vary depending on the source. It is more useful for navigation for those FM/RM routes with sufficient standalone notability to warrant an article to be placed in the appropriate subcategories of Category:Transportation in Texas by county. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of these areas are not well-defined — for example, some definitions of East Texas include the Houston area, while others do not. They are also redundant to the numerical-order lists recently kept at AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sports News Highlights

Sports News Highlights (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 TV network that just launched; written mostly by one editor who may have
WP:COI. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotionally written and fails
WP:GNG, I did not find additional refs contributing to notability. VickKiang (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Only non PR coverage is on CBS, which seems to have a piece in this pie. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best a small mention of this should be made on
chatter) 04:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: A lot of the prose was copied from NewsNet. — Diannaa (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't look to pass
WP:GNG. And that's before the possible copyvio issue highlighted above. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to its parent network
WP:SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:SIGCOV. Sal2100 (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - So a small tv station/broadcast launches on October 31, with almost no coverage and only on tiny low power stations, and on November 1 someone is writing a Wikipedia article about it, with no independent sources at all? Not sure if it's paid editing or very niche fandom, but in any case this is a
WP:N failure. Doesn't seem like we need a redirect to NewsNet as they're both just owned by the same company rather than being part of NewsNet (AFAICT). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I can assure you it's niche fandom, @Rhododendrites. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Considering it was launched on Oct 31 and was immediately made into an article a day later makes this seem promotional. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hualapai Valley. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walapai, Arizona

Walapai, 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)

This a rail spot, the middle of a long stretch of sidings. There is nothing else nearby. The post office mentioned in the article is nowhere near here; it is at the northeast corner of Kingman, some nine miles away, and it is actually named "Hualapai", that being the modern spelling of apparently the whole area. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hualapai Valley. The area served by the post office seems to be alternatively called "Hualapai" and "Hualapai Valley" in sources; for example, the local fire department goes by Hualapai Valley. Since we already have an article on the valley itself, I think any information on the post office and whatever community surrounds it can be included there. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A merge to
Walapai and Yampai and any others that run afoul of AFD, and keep direct links to places like Truxton, Arizona, which I just expanded, which shouldn't run afoul of AFD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Stockton, Arizona

Stockton, 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)

The "Stockton Mine" that appears in the oldest topos is readily verifiable; the "Stockton" that appears next to it starting in the 1960s is not. I can find no reference to a town here except a ghosttowns.com article which says almost nothing, not that they are a reliable source anyway. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ghosttowns.com article does say it had a post office, but I want through every entry on the Mojave County Post Office Site Records (found via USPS) from that time and did not see Stockton anywhere. It does have a RoadsideThoughts page, but similarly to HometownLocator, it just seems to regurgitate GNIS data (thus not notable on it's own). This grazing info page mentions that there is a 'Stockton Hill Ranch' and mentions Stockton as a 'ghost town'. Nothing specifically on the settlement itself, though, so I think I'd support a deletion. BhamBoi (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Feodosia

Massacre of Feodosia (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 sourcing is sorely lacking, with the only source being a lecture that mentions the massacre
only in passing. The massacre, if real, seems to be extremely obscure and one of many non-notable WWII war crimes. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the event is the subject of a 7 page chapter in The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939–1945 by Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, which says the killings stand out for their needless cruelty[37]. The event gets picked up in the news when Feodosia is discussed as it has been recently due to war in Crimea[38]. There are other sources, but these were readily available. Jahaza (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Zayas source plus other mentions appears to be sufficient evidence of notability. —Michael Z. 15:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The zayas source long predates wikipedia, so that rules out
WP:CITOGENESIS (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saigol DDC

Saigol DDC (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)

Taking this to AFD as PROD is contested. In my opinion, this article failed
WP:INHERITED. In the articles, their company are only mentioned in passing, and none of them are in-depth coverage. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced (with respect to coverage of the company, not just houses it might have worked on) and does not meet any notability criteria. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to pass
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted.
(non-admin closure) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Radical G

Radical G (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 about a musical project, not
WP:GNG-worthy media coverage. And the worst part is that the article has looked like this since 2011 without ever seeing any discernible improvement. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Belgium. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:A7. No assertion of importance is made.4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete, the article has been tagged as such. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Esposito

Daniel Esposito (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)

He competed at the 1984 Summer Olympics but did not win a medal. He is the father of
WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Australia. Suonii180 (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notable as coach. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bare assertions are worthless. Significant coverage is required to support such claims. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. There are a very large number of pages about people who competed at Olympic games. I'm not sure whether we want to discuss thousands of similar pages. JMWt (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A huge number of these articles are being deleted or redirected. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:ATD since there is more detail retained there than in an event article, and she is clearly notable whereas his son Max is not so much. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

This is probably SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it significant coverage would be a stretch (tells us he's a builder from Sydney and very little else) and it's only one source. Much more is needed to actually write a complete article (
WP:WHYN). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Possible SIGCOV here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also found this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All are routine sports reporting that don't discuss the subject in any depth, so are not SIGCOV. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think there is just enough coverage of the subject to meet
WP:GNG, thanks to the work of BeanieFan11. There are also multiple references to the subject as a coach and critic of the rules changes for the pentathlon. There is also the Olympic results we cannot ignore. If there is a redirect, it should be to Modern pentathlon at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's individual as opposed to either of the subject's children. --Enos733 (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per coverage provided by
WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 16:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Coverage doesn't go beyond routine sports reporting, so is does not reach the standard needed to pass GNG. wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ROUTINE is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (events), and so it does not apply to people. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail...; the routine sports reporting you found doesn't do that with respect to the subject here. As above, aside from competition results, detail is limited to him being from Sydney, and working as a builder because he had no sponsorship. It's nowhere near enough. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just have to disagree on that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'd say the coverage I've found is just enough to get him over the GNG bar. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the coverage is enough to get over the line. Deus et lex (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the articles BeanieFan11 found and the section about him in this article about his children, I think Esposito meets NBASIC, which specifically says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Hatman31 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the additional coverage presented. Per NBASIC, Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found even more sources about the family and expanded the article a bit.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Gotee Brothers

The Gotee Brothers (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)

Completely unsourced article about a band with at best questionable claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here involves a listed but unsourced award claim, without clarifying whether they won it or were just nominated for it, and otherwise the article just states that the band's music existed -- and even the award is of such debatable notability that 28th GMA Dove Awards (the 1997 ceremony at which this was presumably, but unsourcedly, relevant) is literally just a primary-sourced "ceremony happened, the end" stub without listing even one winner or nominee either, which means it doesn't constitute an unambiguously clear pass of NMUSIC #8 absent proper sourcing. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something significantly better than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to absolve them of having to have any actual sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 8 of
WP:BEFORE was made by the nominator as these were extremely simple to find.4meter4 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Since it is notable as per
WP:CHARTS
and suitable

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dove award isn't the biggest, but it's a big enough genre music award to count. Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. As for the award, notability is not inherited. Subject not notable, there isn't even a single source in the wholeness of the article. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 08:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this band passes an SNG and can therefore be assumed to be notable, I reckon the Dove Awards are an important enough accolade contrary to the nom. There are sources in the article so I'm not sure what Ploreky's concern is there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:NOR concerns should be addressed now. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep. IMO the
WP:SNG criteria should not be considered to be an example of inherited notability. (Note: Also see my comments at User talk:Ploreky prior to its deletion.) Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_November_1&oldid=1120899149"

[1] Proquest
.

[2] Proquest
.

[3] Proquest
.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]