Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:04, 2 November 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 01	November 03 >

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 no consensus‎. No comment since the last relisting so I'm going to close this as No consensus. Discussion about a possible Merge or Redirect can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Riana Agustina

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

Although tragic, I am not sure this is for wikipedia under WP:NOTNEWS. Govvy (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Indonesia, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CRIME. No indication of lasting significance. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe we can keep it. The issue is that not enough sources were added in the article. The case itself garnered quite the attention, plus it is one of the shortest terms of imprisonment for culpable homicide in Singapore court history. At most I think it needs improvement --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/search?q=Riana+Agustina+murder+

https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/search?q=%E6%9E%97%E4%BA%9A%E6%88%90+%E8%B0%8B%E6%9D%80+%E5%A6%BB

I also found newspaper archives of the case. It is quite a lot of coverage, considering the rarity of a wife abusing her husband, and mostly such cases of spouse killing often involve husbands abusing wives before the wives killing their spouses. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)#2005. The crime was used as an example in a 2021 piece by The Straits Times on how the police handles stand-offs [1], and was also referenced as a precedent in the sentencing another case [2], but that's pretty much it. S5A-0043^Talk 01:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - though not much international attention it seems to have received plenty of national. Sources are ok. Article standard is good. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Inexpiable (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Today source dated 13 October 2006 says it was "a rare move in judicial history, the Court of Appeals sent a case back to the High Court for the trial to be reopened", which could make the case notable. But does it? We have the 'word' of one tabloid newspaper. Unable to access the New Paper source but note it's a tabloid. Quite a bit of the article is based on transcripts of the court cases, which are primary sources. The events immediately leading up to the killing have been presented in the article as if they were straight facts rather than what they actually are which is the accused's version. The Straits Times has a brief resume of the case as a notable example of a police stand-off, helps a little with WP:NSUSTAINED but on its own is not enough. ~~Leaning redirect to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)#2005 unless additional reliable sourcing found.~~ Rupples (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, don't redirect as the narrative in the list of major crimes is sourced just from the transcripts and there's no inclusion criteria specfied for that list. Rupples (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm looking for is some discussion/commentary on the facts of the case or the sentence or the implications of any precedent set or public reaction. All I can see in the sources provided is standard reporting that doesn't fulfil WP:INDEPTH and WP:LASTING. Rupples (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its relevant as a case that resulted in one of the shortest terms of imprisonment for culpable homicide in Singapore legal history.

WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009). Simply does not meet WP:NEVENT (parent of NCRIME) as it lacks WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH and WP:EFFECT. If merge is not accepted, please consider my !vote as one for Delete. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested in the comment above this seems fine. Horrible crime, but not much extensive coverage of it having set any sort of change in public policy for example. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source. The case is referenced in this book from 2013 [3]. Could imply a degree of notability; however, access to the book is restricted. Rupples (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)#2005 as a long paragraph on this event was put in there after this article was nominated for deletion, so don't see the benefit. If the level of detail already in the proposed target page is acceptable, is it not preferable, if Wikipedia is to have coverage in excess of a sentence or two of this case, for it to be presented in the much more readable and clearly formatted manner of this article? If it is, then keep, eventhough notability is borderline. If such level of detail is unwarranted, redirect to the proposed target and shorten the overlong paragraph there. Rupples (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Grammaticalization. RL0919 (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specialization (linguistics)

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

This topic is not notable; it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Delete per WP:GNG. The principles of grammaticalization came up by Paul J. Hopper aren't paid much attention in the field of linguistics as a whole and there are other linguistic topics with the same name that are much more notable. – Treetoes023 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were all created by the same editor and they are the other 4 principles of grammaticalization came up by Paul J. Hopper, so the reasons for deletion apply to these articles too:

– Treetoes023 (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to grammaticalization. It is not true that Hopper's work is not studied in linguistics. It is arguably true, though, that these principles are too specific to warrant entire articles. Cnilep (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If "persistence" is kept (and I had trouble finding sufficient sources), it would need a rename as this concept is not the only or primary use of "persistence" as a technical term in linguistics, eg. see [4] (t · c) buidhe 19:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buidhe: This would also apply to "divergence", since the primary use of "divergence" in linguistics is the process whereby languages change in different ways in different places (leading to the creation of new dialects and languages). I assume that the other 3 articles I've nominated are also not the primary usages of their respective terms either. – Treetoes023 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Some opinions on this bundled nomination would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all - With no prejudice toward future expansion if additional sources are found. Seems harmless, since they're all clear sub-concepts of grammaticalization. Suriname0 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per above. // Timothy :: talk 08:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bajram Limani

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

Semi-advertorialized ("his supporters praise him for his dedication to public service and his efforts to improve the lives of citizens in the region") WP:BLP of a political figure not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The claim here is that he has been deputy director of the municipal branch of a political party in one city, which is not an "inherently" notable role that confers a free pass over NPOL -- but the sourcing is not adequate to get him over WP:GNG, as it consists of short blurbs and a brief WP:BLP1E blip of single-day coverage in the context of having been a casual bystander near somebody else doing something, which is not in and of itself a reason why a local political organizer would pass the ten year test as a topic of special significance over and above other local political organizers. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Macedonia. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 2 November 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 Nomintation Withdrawn‎. I withdraw the nomination (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Mägi-Efert

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

Non-Notable Actress, only sources i can find are WP:ROUTINE Coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Theatre, and Estonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. http://etbl.teatriliit.ee/artikkel/m%C3%A4gi-efert_marin1 is a serious source, but seems to be only one--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She isn't "non-notable". She has an entry at Eesti Entsüklopeedia/Eesti Teatriliit. There are subtstantive articles (more than "routine") about her in Õhtuleht (here and here ) and in Postimees (here and here). Postimees and Õhtuleht are the largest dailies in Estonia. Smaller articles (but still full articles) in Postimees (here and here), Kroonika (here and here). And that was with just a cursory search. I don't think you did a proper WP:BEFORE. ExRat (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ohtuleht~~ entsyklopeedia is mostly a database & does not pass WP:SIGCOV, all 4 of those Postimees articles are WP:ROUTINE, Kroonika Articles are WP:ROUTINE. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Õhtuleht isn't a database. It's the largest Estonian entertainment daily newspaper in Estonia and the articles easily pass WP:SIGCOV. The first two Postimees articles are in depth and explicitly about the subject. None are merely "routine" coverage. ExRat (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

whoops fixed the name, i meant entsyklopeedia not Ohtuleht. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eesti Entsüklopeedia isn't a "database". It's literally the digitized Estonian encyclopedia. Eesti Teatrillit is the same. Only notable people have entries. ExRat (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you "she had a baby", "She played this role", "she did this" isn't routine coverage??? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In depth articles in major daily newspapers covering an actress's career and playing "this role" and "doing this" are indeed not routine announcements. ExRat (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per entry in the non-profit, EU-backed national Estonian Encyclopedia as noted by ExRat above. See WP:ANYBIO. Also notable per ExRat's 6 media article citations.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination Withdrawn 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Castilian War. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kota Batu (1578)

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

This article was created without citations. I moved it to the draftspace for incubation. After a brief period of andditions and the draft being declined by two editors (including myself), the article's creator appended a handful of citations and moved the article back to the mainspace. I can find no indication of significant reference to the battle in any of these sources besides one blog post. Additionally, at least one of the sources appears to be a middle school-level textbook. Much of the information in this article is not cited to any reference. I don't think this is a hoax so I think deletion back to draft is probably the best option. Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Brunei, Philippines, and Spain. Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come articles like Brunei People's Awareness Party can get away with it before? its has literally no effort putting on the article? it totally ridiculous. Battle of Kota Batu (1578) at least had effort put into it. Meanwhile Brunei People's Awareness Party has zero effort. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, The Castilian War article, when being made. Only had an INFOBOX. only in 22 September 2007 it had context. They didn't even had REFERENCES. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the Battle of Kota Batu (1578) was also MARKED as a Stub. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Other Stuff Exists. Curbon7 (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good citations on Bruneian history are sadly hard to find. The current text is written with a slant, but the core details seem roughly right. This source (pp. 16-17) provides a ship number of 30 to 40, and provides a bit more political background, but devotes no time to this battle itself. It doesn't refer to "Kota Batu" but simply "Brunei", but it's clearly the same place. It gives a similar number of cannons (62, article has 64). This source (page 30) mentions Seri Lela and Seri Ratna, but otherwise skips right through this period. (Both sources are notably reasonably old at this point, reflecting the difficulty of finding information.) Given the current paucity of sources both here and at Castilian War, corresponding to a very short length in each case, I would suggest redirecting to Castilian War, merging The Battle section and the Aftermath detail. CMD (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on and writing Brunei wikipedia articles for a year now and I do agree that sources for the Bruneian Sultanate era are indeed very hard to come across, and are hardly reliable or valid with many different sources giving different informations for the same topic. This convinced me to stay away from writing articles of that era as it could be challenging to fight for. With how this article stands, I can only give my best of luck to justify its existence on Wikipedia. Please do not be discouraged from writing future articles, other topics from the 1900 onwards are much easier to start from and more likely to be accepted (if done correctly). DuckieWackie (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deferring to subject matter experts here. I consider redirect to Castilian War a good solution, per CMD's digging. Thanks for adding your two bits, too, DuckieWackie! Your work in a poorly illuminated corner of history is a credit to this project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I am confused with the "62, article has 64" part. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source said there were perhaps 62 cannons (although it notes this was not a count from during the battle). The article says 64, citing "Lloyd, Yeo (2010). Explore Social Studies...p. 39. ISBN 978-981-280-979-7" whose existence I cannot validate. CMD (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Kota Batu (1578) article said 62 Cannons. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, yes, but not in the text of the article: "Bruneian defenders were already outnumbered the Bruneians which had only 64 cannons". ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was accidentally Syazwi Irfan (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are we gonna delete (or draft) it or not? Syazwi Irfan (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the name to Siege of Kota Batu as it was a siege (of course.) Syazwi Irfan (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Battle of Kota Batu (1578) to Siege of Kota Batu (1578). As its siege rather than a battle. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your move. Please do not move articles that are being discussed at an AFD, it complicates the discussion closure. After it's closed, feel free to move the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already made a topic in the main article. it should be here. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should talk about the article and not moves. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're talking about article moves because you mistakenly moved the article. Now the discussion can return to notability and sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per others. The sourcing just isn't there. S0091 (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has at least three sources that are scholarly and directly relevant which is enough to support the article. I don't see how deleting or redirecting would improve the encyclopaedia, and draftify is for improvement when the article seems ready for mainspace as written. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that other material cited in the article does not actually verify the content of the article, so we are partially relying on AGF under those rocky circumstances to believe there are academic SIGCOV sources on this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misreading that, it feels like it falls under WP:DINC, or it's WP:BABY writ large. If instead you mean that the subject meets GNG only by inflating the attention that the sources pay to this event, I would still !vote to Keep. I think it would be wiser to err on the side of WP:NOTPAPER and give the benefit of the doubt. To clarify what I said above, I don't see how deleting this entire article or redirecting would improve the encyclopaedia, even though the article could certainly use improvement. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Last1in can you or @Syazwi Irfan point to a reliable source that has written in-depth about the event? I struggle to understand how, for an example, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, covers it as at least according to outline it begins in the 1800's but this event occurred in 1578. Some details about what the sources actually state will be helpful. Also @Chipmunkdavis states there is one source they can't find evidence it exists and @Pangalau states reliable sources largely do not exist covering the time period. S0091 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Castilian War per CMD's argument. Not notable in its own right. SBKSPP (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working Class Hero: A Tribute to John Lennon

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

Not a particularly notable album. Only sources are Discogs (user-generated) and AllMusic, seemingly the only review. Also no charting. Bedivere (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bedivere (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found charting and a review from Cashbox and a review from See Magazine. There's also this from Billboard which might be charting but I'm not entirely clear. The first two plus AllMusic's review are solid for NALBUM#1/GNG. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a pre-Internet release there are few reviews to be found online today, but the article can be enhanced with the sources found by Q.H. above. A Google Books search also reveals a few more hardcopy reviews (e.g. [5]), while the album is described at least briefly in books about various contributing bands [e.g. [6]) and in some biographies of John Lennon. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Peter Hammill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fie! Records

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peter Hammill. This didn't need to come to AfD; it's an obvious solution and much preferable to creating a redlink. Chubbles (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peter Hammill not independently notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:57, 8 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Graham (snooker player)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE search, which included a check of the the British Newspaper Archive, failed to uncover any significant coverage that would contribute towards notability. There is one paragraph about Graham in the 5th edition of the Benson and Hedges Snooker Yearbook (1988), which basically briefly lists which professional qualifying events he scored points at, and that he defeated Clive Everton in a play-off. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cue sports. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a WP:BEFORE search didn't bring sufficient sources, mostly database entries. Suonii180 (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:18, 8 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abilene Christian University College of Arts and Sciences

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

WP:INHERITORG While the parent organization might be notable, there's nothing to indicate that the College of Arts and Sciences is. Wozal (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and Texas. Wozal (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back (selectively) to the parent article on the whole university. This college has 2000 students, when the whole university has 6000. I note a lot of redlinks, which in turn suggests that it is not separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there anything to really merge though? Abilene Christian University College of Arts and Sciences (as an article name) is already significantly longer than Abilene Christian University. People linked don't seem to be notable; the only remaining person that isn't redlinked is questionable on whether they even have a connection to Abilene or if it's a different individual with the same name. Arts & Sciences are commonly amongst the largest schools at a university but there's nothing to suggest that the 2,000 number is of any importance to the main article. Wozal (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have said merge but what is there to merge like non notable faculty members. Does not merit a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others, noting that it is currently not even mentioned at Abilene Christian University and that a redirect to there would thus not be helpful to readers. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with above comments, does not merit standalone article and merging into parent article would add little value. Kazamzam (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teatro O Tablado

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NBUILD. No secondary RS I could find. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, and Brazil. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. I searched on www.google.pt and found multiple potential references. I added two to the article in a new "see also" section.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable theatre, can be expanded with sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Williams (linebacker)

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

None of the current sources are WP:INDEPENDENT, and I could not find enough significant coverage in secondary sources to suggest that the topic meets notability guidelines. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Texas. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the secondary sources present in the article. Diff

BurgeoningContracting 17:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Although somewhat weak), appears to pass WP:GNG, see for example Waco Tribune-Herald, MyParisTexas, KWTX, Fox44, EParisExtra, plus lesser coverage at KXXV and Fox44 (2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources posted above. Enough to pass GNG. Frank Anchor 18:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bhitabaria Union. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhitabaria

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

Per WP:NGEO. NGA is considered an unreliable source. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added two more references to verify existence.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bhitabaria Union - Places are not notable simply because they exist. WP:GEOLAND gives a presumption of notability to legally recognised populated places, but the only thing that has legal recognition demonstrated in the sourcing is the union parishad (Union council) of Bhitabaria, which we already have an article about at Bhitabaria Union. We have no information about the village separate to this union council. FOARP (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bhitabaria Union. Not seeing multiple sources meeting general notability.

Flurrious (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movies.com

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

Fails GNG and NWEB. The two present sources only talk about the site's aquisition. No other sources immediately visible NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 16:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article was in sad shape, which passed muster around here when it was created almost 18 years ago, I suppose. I have expanded and added more citations, I think the website is certainly notable. It is kind of funny how many of the basic URLs that people thought would be automatic cash cows in the late 1990s didn't succeed, like this one, and Pets.com as the quintessential example. I guess humans prefer interesting brand names. E.g., I just checked, books.com redirects to Barnes & Noble's website.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been significantly improved using multiple reliable sources as per WP:HEY so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nginx–MySQL–PHP packages

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

This list is extremely short and doesn't cite any sources. I don't think it fits under standalone list notability guidelines, because it's a List of X of Y of Z. SPA⁵CE! ^{talk about it} 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Websites. SPA⁵CE! ^{talk about it} 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LEMP stack would've met the notability requirements, but the article doesn't discuss it, instead focusing on packaging of all of the stack components together, which doesn't seem to be widely described in sources and, frankly, uncommon. Won't oppose Redirect to LAMP (software bundle)#Variants or Move to LEMP stack as a second choice. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Everett

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

Per WP:ARTIST. No claim of notability. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, California, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:TOOSOON No significant coverage available to improve the article as written. Not in any notable exhibitions or collections. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Glasgow Cathcart by-election

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

No references provided, and lack of significant coverage of the event. 1keyhole (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glasgow Cathcart (Scottish Parliament constituency). There is very brief coverage in Construction News and The Herald, and an article in the Times, but that's not enough to satsify WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Previous elections in the constituency have been covered in the main article, so it would be appropriate to put the results there; after stripping off the unsourced commentary, of course. Liu1126 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After reading newer comments and another search for sources, I found an article from the BBC and another article from the Times, in addition to the sources I listed in my previous comment. Given these new circumstances, I am changing my recommendation to keep. Liu1126 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Glasgow Cathcart (Scottish Parliament constituency) Merge per WP:ATD. Previous elections are covered on the page. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By-election are typically considered to be notable. I was able to find a couple sources through a cursory search, such as [7]. Curbon7 (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Election to national parliament so implied notability. Coverage exists and has been found. doktorb _words^deeds 05:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was a by-election to a major legislature which had plenty of coverage at the time in every major Scottish media outlet. There is quite a bit on the BBC news website for example including over its timing. Dunarc (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ICFAI University, Tripura

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

Largely PROMO for the university, with large chunks of text non-sourced, rest of the sourcing is primary or simple lists or legislative texts. I find no external coverage of the institution itself, only of students having won xyz award. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tendentiously edited by paid editor, blatant advertising and fails WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very promotional however may not meet G11. But anyways fails WP:NORG. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost every one of the 66 references I’ve found are promotional, and possible WP:UPE involvement. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 20:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From 66 I've found some are promotional but not entirely many of them have cited for reference which looks ok. We should make some changes to it so it follows the guidelines of Wikipedia and in a neutral point of view KujoJoske (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC):Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which do you consider as valid, please present your top 3 here so we can review. Oaktree b (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources invariably fail either WP:ORGIND or WP:ORGDEPTH or both Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~:There are "n" number of articles similar to this but there isn't a single issue with them. Why? KujoJoske (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, if there are other articles on organisations that fail requirements, you can request their deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag them for deletion as well, we need to review them Oaktree b (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please search with the keywords like University, University in India, Institute in India, Institute, Colleges and check the articles published KujoJoske (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~I'm surprised many of prominent institute have cited poor source and blatantly advertising and no actions have been taken that's seems very suspicious. KujoJoske (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Please keep the discussion here to the article at hand. You can nominate any articles for deletion that you feel are invalid, on their pages. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Socks are out in full force today. It does seem suspicious yes, thank you Mr. Sock. I wondered why it was so interesting to you. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept universities established by state legislation. The quality of the article is irrelevant to the notability of the topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. Always better then SPAM. The Banner talk 16:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tendentiously edited by paid editor, blatant advertising and fails WP:NORG. The Banner talk 16:32, 8 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Min Ko Thu

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

Would have been an unsourced BLP if it were not for me adding the Soccerway link. My searches using the Burmese name did not yield any relevant hits. The best that I could find from his English name was ASEAN Football, which is just a trivial mention. I couldn't find anything in my WP:BEFORE search that shows a passing of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and none of the sources that were added to this in the past showed significant coverage from an independent source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- I have added 2 sources from the Arabic Wiki, but they fail WP:SIGCOV. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 2 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Real León

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

The article is unreferenced and there is lack of significant coverage 1keyhole (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Easily fails WP:GNG. No sources I could find. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Délvidék football team

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

No evidence found of notability. Fram (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Hungary, and Serbia. Fram (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not listed at Confederation of Independent Football Associations#List of members so redirect not feasible. Giant Snowman 18:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Non-notable football team; not enough sources or demonstrated notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alain Bingan

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

The sourcing for this article just is not good enough for a WP:BLP. Even the 2011 archive, which is the furthest back that I could find, is a dead link. In any case, cotonsport.com would not have been an independent source. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV under "Paul Bingan", "Paul Alain Bingan" or "Alain Bingan" or even anything to get this over the bare minimum of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. I respect that this article has gone unchallenged since 2008 but I think that it's time to consider deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Fiss

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

This article does not seem to cover a notable subject, and doesn't meet WP:NPOV. The only WP:RS is as playing a minor non-speaking role in a film. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to meet notability requirements; only coverage I could find was this [8], which is a routine PR announcement. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Mere Agal Bagal Hai

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2014 DonaldD23 talk to me 11:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Closest thing I could find to a source for notability was this:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/tu-mere-agal-bagal-hai-actors-give-part-of-income-for-charity/articleshow/39298147.cms Flurrious (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the only coverage appears to be two promotional blurbs before it started airing and then one blurb about the cast doing some promotional charity work outside of the actual show. the show doesnt even appear to have run a year because looking at the cast pages, most of the cast were in other shows later in the same year. pretty much the only thing to say about the show is "for a brief time, it existed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.29 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés López de Noche

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2019 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources not independent, fails WP:GNG. Flurrious (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ speedy delete by Drmies per WP:CSD#G5 (created by a banned editor). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Surace

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

Highly promotional BLP, but does contain some assertions of notability (on first reading, at least). Happy‑melon 13:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Medicine, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does read very much as a self written article in my opinion, again, on first reading. Dialupnetwork (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet academic notability and I don't see significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as written, sounds like he's a routine medical businessman, no doubt a good guy, but not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and even were he notable, the article would be a TNT-case, being promotional start to finish. Elemimele (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Peixoto

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

Played a few games for Dempo then seemingly disappeared. I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources I can find are Rediff, Pune Mirror and The Hard Tackle, all of which only mention Peixoto once and do not address him in any detail at all. The two current references are both trivial mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Goa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Gusti Made Astawa

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

Potential failure of WP:GNG and possibly even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Playing as a professional is no longer an automatic exemption from GNG. All I can find are database sources, Wikipedia mirrors and a Blogspot page called 'Aremania'. There is also a page on Indonesian Teacher Association which has no info. From it we can presume that he is/was a teacher but there is no true claim to notability here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Frank Zappa discography#Posthumous official albums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZAPPAtite

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM. Previously deleted, but recreated DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frank Zappa discography#Posthumous official albums: Previous AfD presented a handful of announcement articles from what I take to be reliable sources (including one from JazzTimes which unfortunately appears to be permadead). It's not bad, but personally I don't think announcement articles alone should be enough to keep an article, no matter how many you pile on, since they usually just say the same thing adapted directly from a press release. Couldn't find any more substantial coverage. Not every release by notable artists deserves its own article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Missed Call (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Nothing found in a BEFORE, other language pages yield no useful citations. Tagged for notability since 2018 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One_Missed_Call_(2003_film)#Sequels_and_remake, where it is mentioned.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Missed Call (2003 film) or keep if someone simply has the time to find sources that clearly establish notability, which should not be too difficult. This was a nationally-televised program with approximately a 9% rating share, indicating almost certain notability under WP:NTVNATL. I am not sure what kind of WP:BEFORE was done in Japanese here, if any at all, but this is part of an ongoing trend of this editor listing nationally-televised Japanese series for deletion. There doesn't appear to be any effort here to change course despite the fact that these articles are not being deleted, and I find I am unable to keep up with the repeated nominations even though the deletion requests are not going through (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasen (TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kagerō no Tsuji: Inemuri Iwane Edo Zōshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love of My Life (Japanese TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kekkon Dekinai Otoko). Dekimasuよ! 03:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or !merge if that's the decision, I'm ok with it going that way. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless we can find Japanese language sources, I can only find items about movie online. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dekimasu was right - there was a review out there. Notable per a British magazine review cited in the Spanish Wikipedia article. (The German, Japanese and Chinese articles were inadequately referenced). I have added it to the reference section.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:00, 10 November 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. I've also salted the three titles I know about, Icaria (fest), ICARIA (event) and Icaria (event). Bishonen | tålk 18:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Icaria (fest)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Previously G11'd as ICARIA (event), then recreated as Icaria (event), again G11, then recreated now. Looking to get it salted. scope_creep^Talk 12:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Technology, and Tripura. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt, plain and simple G11. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt non notable, repeatedly re-created by paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

previous I have proposed for deletion trying to create a neutral point of view article and not any intention to promote in any way. ChoudharySamrat (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. As a user with a conflict of interest, please do not create the article directly, but submit it as a draft so it can be reviewed prior to having it go in article space. From then, you can use {{edit COI}} to suggest further revisions on the article's talk page. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Plenty of announcements of people performing at the festival, nothing about the festival itself. Article as it is now doesn't even confirm where it takes place, random city in an un-named country... Poorly sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Agartala, Tripura, India, but the name of the city is only made clear in the infobox. (And not everyone knows that Tripura is an Indian state, so India should also be mentioned but isn't) ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:58, 2 November 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!} 04:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Hedengård

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

Lack of notability. Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Television, Fashion, Internet, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This may be an instance of a person notable for only one event. Hedengård received coverage after allegedly being fat-shamed by the modeling industry despite being thin. As indicated on the article, this was covered in many outlets, including E! News, The Independent, and Cosmo. I'd be interested in knowing if more has surfaced since 2015, especially if sources may be available in Swedish. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:1E, there is literally zero coverage before or after the 2015 event. --hroest 03:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karthika Muralidharan

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Insufficient independent secondary reliable sources. Mostly interviews and passing mentions in run-of-the-mill news. No inherent notability. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2 lead roles in 2 notable films, and that is sourced, so that she passes WP:NACTOR, the guideline stating, "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets NACTOR. Both the listed films have multiple reviews in WP:ICTFSOURCES, and the subject is mentioned by name in many of them. —siro χ o 09:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Friedlander

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

PR article about a non-notable WP:JOURNALIST, created by possible COI account Noam25. I could not find a single secondary source about this person, every source on the article is primary or otherwise unreliable. Fails GNG. SparklyNights 04:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and United States of America. SparklyNights 04:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Participants of this discussion should watch out for UPE in the Noam Friedlander page and/or in this discussion. Please see this. SparklyNights 23:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources in the article are independent reliable sources. Even the article about her being shot is one that she authored. BD2412 T 03:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many, many interviews found BY her, nothing written ABOUT her. Appears a working journalist. The film career appears non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akim Camara

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. A search for sources yields almost exclusively user-generated content. The lack of reliable sources for the information has implications for WP:BLP. I have counted two regional newspapers (one German, one American) but cannot as yet find anything that indicates enough notability for a standalone article. Nonovix (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nonovix (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete probably WP:TOOSOON; does not have SIGCOV, the only articles I could find did not contain in-depth coverage, were not RS or described a youtube video: [9] [10] [11]. The coverage is either shallow as in El Diario Montañés or not in a RS. --hroest 03:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antabli Fountain

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

Some random fountain. A search barely returns anything. Aintabli (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Aintabli (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs work and there seem to be some variant spellings but this and this and this convince me it's an notable landmark of the souk, with a history dating to the Ottoman period, etc jengod (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe passing mentions in several publications and websites are enough to justify a separate article on a small fountain. According to the sources, this fountain is known because of a shop or street vendor formerly located next to the fountain operated by a family of the same name, which verges on WP:NGEO#No inherited notability. The fountain might have its history dating back to the Ottoman period, but as far as I can see, its current form is anything but Ottoman, and I'm interested if any sources give an "in-depth account" of its Ottoman history. Souk Ayas deserves an article more, in which this fountain could be mentioned. Aintabli (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is sourced to an interview with a person that remembered it from long ago, hardly a RS. I can't find anything. I tried search for French sources "fontaine d'Antabli", still nothing came up. Delete for any sort of sourcing, not meeting GNG Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Few sources or any sign of notability. Like Oaktree pointed out, what sources do exist may hardly be classified under WP:RS. GuardianH (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. If a article move is called for, you all can take it from here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stomopteryx splendens

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:SPECIES as it doesn't have a valid name. Hongsy (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LepIndex lists it as a valid name, but that is indeed the only source I can find - not present in any other databases. Bit odd. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Anacampsis to Stomopteryx is here. Choess (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite seeing how this states a transfer from Anacampsis to Stomopteryx, other than noting "Anacampsis being often wrongly applied to (the genus))"? However, to muddy things a bit more, Anacampsis splendens is apparently considered a synonym of Oxyperyx splendes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it cites Staudinger's original publication of Anacampsis splendens in 1881? It's not clear to me that anyone has actually made the combination in Oxypteryx. Choess (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SPECIES specifies that an article on a species with a valid name is kept, but that doesn't imply that a species without a valid name must have its page deleted. And there seems to be some ambiguity about the name anyway, so let's not rush to delete. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think there is not enough material to establish the existence of this species as clearly defined. This volume of Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae mentions "? Stomopteryx splendens" (page 125) but that is the only explicit mention of the species by name. On page 127, there is a discussion about how the above mentioned Anacampsis splendens was a misidentified species of Stomopteryx, but the species was not determined from that sample. Doesn't seem like this is enough to save the article as a passing references. Kazamzam (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is it worth starting a debate/RfC somewhere on what we do with dubious species? We need to think about why we give species automatic notability. If we have nothing to say about a species, except that someone described it, then the only real justifications for having an article are either (1) to record its mere existence for those who need to know if a species exists or not; or (2) to provide a foundation for further information when it appears. If we're keeping based on (1) then we should also keep articles on species that were described but are not currently deemed valid, or that got fused into other species, because our readers have a valid need to know the species don't exist, and why. If we're keeping based on (2) then we should delete articles on species that don't exist and that didn't generate enough historical information to create an article, because there will never be anything further to say about them. The result of the current AfD debate depends on this general question. Elemimele (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Elemimele - please advice how i can start a RfC on this topic. Hongsy (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hongsy:, I've started one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Request_for_comment,_deletion_of_dubious_species. I hope I've done it correctly, it's the first time I've tried this! The instructions are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Elemimele (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Elmidae and Choess: there are some other combinations in play, with poor presence on the internet. One is Aproaerema splendens, found on a wiki (with scans of Staudinger's description of Anacampsis splendens); I'm not sure where this combination was actually published. The other is Xystophora splendens with this as the only Google result (this is the same publication Kazamzam has linked above, but hosted on a different site), which says "The case is now as follows : the species splendens Stgr., is based on a female specimen (1. c. 90—91), and is a Xystophora Hein., taxon. The first female (1. c. 325) is a Stomopteryx s. 1. not validly described, unnamed. It needs further material, and, among it, male specimens, to unreservedly identify and describe it." On the following page, the combination Xystophora splendens is made. Plantdrew (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Syncopacma splendens of this relatively recent paper may refer to this species, but I'm not sure where, if anywhere, that combination was made. Choess (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, I finally had a chance to sit down and write the taxonomy section. It appears this article should properly be at Xystophora splendens, but between Staudinger's original description and Gozmány's commentary, there's enough for an article, and there is a species here with a properly published name. (I haven't translated Staudinger's description yet but Gozmány calls it "thorough".) I have not yet seen evidence of published combinations in Aproaerema or Oxypteryx. Choess (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given Choess' work in laying out the taxonomic history, it appears that there is a valid description here with a rather mixed history. Keep and move as required; I'll take the words of the more taxonomically experienced wrt the target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently valid species. AryKun (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. I see a consensus to Redirect this artilce (for now). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Afton

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply put, the article doesn't have significant, third party discussion in reliable sources. The sources that are here are either primarily unreliable, or fall back on ValNet with little substance (please note while I'm not *against* ValNet sources, the lists being the backbone of an article should give pause). While there was some assumption the recent film may provide articles for notability, a quick search shows that's not the case. Things are further compounded by the confusion as to *which* versions of "Springtrap" count as Afton, which certainly doesn't help matters.

I will take an aside and mention that setting this up, I'm aware this is being frequented by a lot of anonymous and new users: I'd like to direct them to WP:N as the guideline involved here. The matter isn't saying Afton can't have an article, I'm arguing the sources available don't make it viable for Wikipedia's standards, and if you're going to suggest sources, check WP:VG/S for reliability first. I'll also just be safe and point out that AfD's aren't a vote they're a discussion. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. This franchise could definitely use a proper List of Five Nights at Freddy's characters, and I encourage it to be split off from the franchise page and expanded appropriately, but Afton alone does not appear to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The confusion over the characters would probably make that also a bit of a mess I feel. There's also the matter that there may not really be enough to say about the individual characters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  How the characters are organized is a matter for talk page discussion in the character list. However, it is unquestionable that this franchise should have such a list at this time, all that is needed is for someone to create it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It can only be considered unquestionable if the characters can be proven to first have significant reception as a group. And as Kung Fu Man says, there is a good chance that there will be confusion over the characters due to the puzzle-box narrative of the franchise, leading to a large WP:FANCRUFTy mess. The Night Watch (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters - I tried several times to find adequate sources for something like this. I was holding out and hoping people would praise the character in the film adaptation, but after its critical failure and nothing showing up after a week in theaters, the characters notability is likely dead in the water. I would love for a character as crazy as this to hae an article, but it unfortunately doesn't seem like it can stand in its own.

NegativeMP1 06:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The movie was a runaway commercial success and will almost certainly be getting one or more sequels, so I think there is actually a chance that the character will be notable at some point down the line. Right now, however, not really. WP:TOOSOON applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. I would love to see this article restored at its current state later-- I think it's pretty good-- but the sources are not really covering it, as per the above. A quick search for Afton right now doesn't bring up much, but given his setup in the current film, Afton'll have time to shine later. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 13:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. I could not find significant coverage of this character's reception after examining movie reviews across multiple days, and skimming Google Books/Scholar. The Valnet sources generally do not lead to notability per WP:VG/S consensus. Best to redirect unless something more significant comes up. The Night Watch (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it seems obvious to me that this character clearly passes GNG. There are 19 sources, many of which are not Valnet sources. Furthermore, even if we for some reason decide that all the sources in the page are invalid, notability isn't determined by what's in the page itself. Sources absolutely exist because this franchise has had nearly a decade of speculation and reviews. In addition, with the movie coming out recently, even more sources are being made. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:REFBOMB - a zillion trivial mentions still does not equal significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't pass GNG though Di, that's the problem. And assuming a subject should be able to due to age also doesn't work out otherwise we'd have far more Pokemon articles to say the least, let along stuff like the Dead or Alive cast.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the article is at a good state and although I concede the sourcing is shoddy at the moment I imagine there's enough to keep the article and detail it to Wikipedia standards if you look to older sources that aren't just news about the movie. Also agree with @Di (they-them) that it's premature at the moment since the movie just released- I think it would be more appropriate to revisit the notability status of this article after media attention to it has concluded. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HadesTTW. I found various sources on the character. I think if movie details are added then it definatly can be expanded. If not keep then Draftify it Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: What sources exactly? Not doubting you just would probably be good to get a better idea.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: This [12] history of the character and this [13] this talks about his connection to Micheal in the games and how its undermind by Mike in the movie, and this [14] which talks about the Spring bonnie/Springtrap distinction.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: The problem is though none of them are really discussing the character, those are fine for the body (and two of them being Valnet doesn't help as they're not opinion pieces as it were. Compare it to, say Nemesis (Resident Evil) or Merchant (Resident Evil), where the character is being analyzed and getting reactions. That's the sort of sourcing you want to aim for. Even in cases like Valnet if you can get a source like this where it's actively discussing thoughts and reactions on a subject you can cite you can build with that. Do you get what I'm saying? Those sources just don't seem to be present enough for Afton or even Springtrap.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to ask but can you explain what a Valnet source is? Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here, this may help: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Valnet. Basically Valnet is often encouraged to be avoided for reception because they're a content farm: less discussing something and regurgitating reddit and whatnot for content, or in the case there just giving a blow by blow. You can sometimes get strong sources still from the sites, but you shouldn't build the spine of your article on them, especially a multitude of pages.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty much what Di said, this can be seen in the explosion of pageviews recently, this character is clearly notable and even more sources are bound to appear. self strike, feel free to ignore this Wandering Morpheme 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews are not a metric to determine if a character is notable or not. We determine notability though significant coverage from reliable sources. NegativeMP1 17:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see a lot of users asserting that there must be sources for this character due to the recent film adaptation, or that older sources may exist that provide commentary on the character. The problem is, I have done several preliminary searches on both Google Scholar and Books (no commentary significant turned up on Scholar, no reliable hits at all for Books) and reading the film reviews from various reliable film sources (using WP:FILM/R and Rotten Tomatoes) across over a week after release turns up a dearth of significant commentary on the character, especially its reception. The only source that has a small amount of non-Valnet commentary is the SlashFilm source already in the article, but the article only gives a minor amount of attention to Afton like "he's a terrifying villain like Jigsaw" and nothing super substantial. If the subject is notable, please provide reliable (non-Valnet) sources for it that provide significant commentary on how the character was received, because the majority of the critical reviews have probably already been written over a week after the film's release. The Night Watch (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect While I think Afton has grounds for an article, the sources just don't exist right now. I'd say that it's best this article be recreated if more sources turn up in the future, which seems likely given the character's popularity and the potential of future FNAF movies. Right now, though, a redirect seems the best option. Pokelego999 (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pokelego999, should have an article just not right now. Sebbog13 (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect After looking I have concluded that there arent enough sources, while there may be someday, as of now I think that it is best to redirect it to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. However I think that as there may be enough in the future I thinkdeletion should be avoided (see WP:PRESERVE.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. While there is potential for the character to warrant his own Wikipedia page, I don't think it's substantial enough to justify it now. I'd say redirect for now and come back to the topic if we can get the article to be substantial enough to warrant spinning it out of Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. GeniusReading2310 (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as WP:ATD. Subject doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a stong opinion one way or the other. Only that experienced users (not me in this instance) probably shouldn't be directed to AfC in order to move a draft into mainspace. AfD is the correct venue for that discussion. GMG ^talk 23:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. Personally, William could get an article if he had enough sources. But he doesn't yet. Perhaps he could get a page sometime in the future. FriendlyGrim (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2023 (PST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 04:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K27EC-D

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

Notable only on local level. Only sources are FCC and RabbitEars. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So? Check out WP:LOCAL and proceed accordingly! Americanfreedom (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable translator that never originated any local programming. We're not going to find any local sources for this outside its existence being noted, Americanfreedom. Nate • (chatter) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even something whose notability actually is "only on local level" would probably garner some coverage at that level. I suppose it's not impossible for a pair of low-power stations — this article covers two, and a third one that was closed a decade earlier than the others — that seemingly only carried national religious services to somehow still obtain the requisite significant coverage that would meet the GNG, but I'm not holding my breath. Frankly, it's hard to see any notability here on any level. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 3 November 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 Nomination Withdrawn‎. I Withdraw this Nomination (Spanish Version of the article has more info& references that can be added to the English Article. (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Machetá

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

Non-notable location, the only 2 sources don't show notability, cited for expansion since 2016. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND as a populated and legally recognized place. Looks like some Spanish-language sources exist [15], though I can't discern the depth of the coverage or the reliability of said sources. Ping me if something comes up regarding those. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colombia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing wrong with this article that couldn't be fixed by adding some sources, of which there are plenty on the Spanish version. Machetá is vastly more notable than many of the obscure places in the USA that come up regularly in these discussions. Athel cb (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Spanish WP entry on this town: [16] has a lot of quality references (and some non-quality ones), demonstrating there is a lot that can be said about this place, if someone wants to translate some of the sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Garmin products

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

Mostly not sourced; while reviews can be found for some products (and capsule reviews abound) most of these products aren't notable. The sources given are almost completely from Garmin's own website. The list itself has problems with WP:NOTCATALOG. Mikeblas (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Garmin has 16 results total, seven of which are actual products with their own articles. Garmin iQue has no references other than a link to a YouTube video. The others seem to have a lot of references to press releases and their own website. Lot to look through. If this article was prunned of anything that didn't have references to independent reliable sources, perhaps it could be a legitimate article. right now its just a long rambling catalog. Dream Focus 06:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE WP:NOTPROMO. Mention of any notable products can appear on the company's article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPRICE and WP:NLIST. No evidence of independent reliable sources discussing Garmin products as a whole specifically. Liu1126 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reolink

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability under WP:COMPANY. Sources cited don't look like WP:SIGCOV. Muzilon (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it feels surprising how little coverage there seems to be from a quick search given that they seem to be a relatively major company in the market. But I think I'm likely to agree here, even if I'd like to take the time to dig a little more. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really couldn't find anything even close suitable at all on the company itself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YourStory

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable publication. References are routine announcements or fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Previously deleted and user creating the new page removed SPEEDY tag. Taking to AfD to decide. CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As an alternative, a merge into Shradha Sharma may be appropriate since coverage about her is more significant. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer look, I am not so sure that she would meet guidelines either. Will need to look closer at the coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All of the sources are routine updates. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's got to be delete; the subject doesn't seem particularly notable at the moment, and sentences like "YourStory has played a pivotal role in shaping the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the country by providing a platform for emerging businesses to share their journeys and experiences", which is not well-supported by any of the three sources that follow, are hopelessly peacockish. Elemimele (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Ross Haywood

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE as a failed judicial nominee. Being a assistant United States attorney does not correlate to someone meeting the notability requirements. A redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies seems reasonable. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as WP:ATD, but won't bold my !vote because ProQuest is down right now. —siro χ o 02:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect per the results of the numerous similar AfD's on judicial nominees, as article creator. Safiel (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much of the article is copyvio from a news article published a few hours before this one was created. I'm surprised it wasn't called out in 7 years. Maybe I'm wrong? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No copyvio exists. The papers themselves were regurgitating word for word from the official White House announcement, which obviously is in the public domain. Not going to bother restoring the deleted information since this article is getting deleted anyhow, but there is zero need for redaction. Safiel (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relacom

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

There is no sourcing for this article and I was unable to find additional sources upon searching. Additionally all of the users who substantially contributed are now blocked so I was unable to find anyone to discuss the merits of this article with. Libs4Libraries (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to not delete just yet - but however, I strongly agree, it is way, way short on references and badly needs more. GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, Europe, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the contributors are all blocked, doesn't that make the article eligible for CSD G5? Fermiboson (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's coverage in Finnish newspapers about Relacom Finland, but it's just your basic announcement type things without any independent analysis:

Starts co-determination talks prior to lay-offs [17]
Doesn't intend to lay off people [18]
Employees walk out [19]
Lays off 100 people [20]
Lays off another 365 people [21]
Lays off 430 [22]
Goes bankcrupt [23]

Reliable sources, certainly, but the articles have all the hallmarks of simply regurgitating a press release. I'm not seeing any coverage about the parent company in Finnish. Swedish papers might have better coverage, but hypothetical coverage does not count. As such, I'll go with "delete" unless someone can actually identify good WP:CORPDEPTH sources. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ikkjutt Jammu. Following the complicated advice of User:Siroxo Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete:This Article is a pramotion based.User:Secularyear2023 — Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 1 November 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Hinduism, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ikkjutt Jammu as WP:ATD, move the resulting redirect to Ankur Sharma (politician) to preserve history, and then move Ankur Sharma (disambiguation) to this location, updating the appropriate link. —siro χ o 03:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Siro.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erfan Saadati

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

Fails notability, This guy is absolutely non-notable just won a continental junior medal. the same thing as other pages created like this, writing a very short article and then throwing lots of almost non-related refs to make it look notable. looks more like a "job" than a genuine edit. Sports2021 (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sports2021 (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Here's hoping editors can add newly found sources to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City Guys

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

Both sources are user-generated and therefore do not count as RS. One is specifically listed as UNreliable. Could not find SIGCOV online. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. To start, we have SIGCOV in a couple books: [24] and [25]. Given the era there's likely to be more offline sources as well. It was on a major network for 5 years, so it's almost certain to be notable. —siro χ o 04:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The first book source seems ok, I can't open the second. I found this brief review in Uproxx, [26]. I'd give it a pass. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I can find in newspapers are plot summaries in TV listings from the period it aired. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was studied as part of the new children's television law/guidelines [27], [28], second one analyzed the demographics that watched and didn't watch the show... This talks about it briefly [29]. Coverage in ScreenRant, a marginally RS [30], similar coverage in Bustle, also a mid-range RS [31]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw the nom if you'll add this to the article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: It meets most qualifications for notability, but it seems likely to have been tagged merely for lack of citations. I’d argue that the article instead merits reference improvements, and added detail to certain sections. TVTonightOKC (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love Me (Danson Tang album)

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

The majority of the sources in the article are album information sourced from music databases. These sources are not third-party. There is also one source about the album receiving an award, but it does not provide an introduction to the album. Therefore, this article does not meet the criteria of notability. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chinese wikipedia entry here[32] has no sources. Oblivy (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this article should be deleted as not being notable. Bduke (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian Village, Naples, Florida

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

not enough info to have a complete article; delete or redirect suggested Matthew is here zero (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete This seems like the AfD for Tin City recently. It's been in a purgatory state since its creation in 2007. I would say a redirect to Naples, Florida, but it looks like it was already shoehorned into the POI list. I think a delete is ok, as it's not noteworthy. This is a shopping plaza in the downtown area of Naples. Nothing unique to write home about from what I remember...do they still have a Ben and Jerry's there? lol – The Grid (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
both the tin city and the venetian village pages are in almost the same state none of them have enough info to make a complete article, unless you want to mention every restaurant and shopping there. also yes the ben and jerry's is still there Matthew is here zero (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

💬Comment- If the article is kept it should be moved to The Village Shops on Venetian Bay due to that being the official name. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the offical name of the place is irrelevant per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. However, since there seems to be no sources... I doubt that'll matter anyways.

Industrial Insect (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Shops on Venetian Bay is also the Common Name(More results appear when searching it) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is beyond the scope of this AfD. – The Grid (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ELRA Language Resources Association

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

This is a G12 and borderline G11 with no policy compliant version, but it has been here since 2006 so I don't feel comfortable speedying it. The broader issue however is I cannot find WP:ORG compliant sourcing to stub it back to, so we're here. Star Mississippi 00:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, France, and Luxembourg. Star Mississippi 00:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy @Diannaa who raised adajacent CV concerns with the creator but also didn't delete this. Star Mississippi 00:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notice of this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hindi Belt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cow belt

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

Procedural nomination; I am neutral. PRODded in 2020 by LearnIndology (no-pinged; TBANned and inactive) for reason It is just a social media slang and not enough scholarly sources are available for this term. Instead BLAR'd to Indo-Gangetic Plain by Capankajsmilyo. Restored by आज़ादी, BLAR'd again by LearnIndology because has nothing except a dictionary source; restore redirect, and finally brought to RfD, where I found consensus to restore and send to AfD. A number of RfD voters favored redirecting to BIMARU states, which this AfD should consider. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's non-trivial to consider, but fairly obvious. Reddy 2015, p. 109 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFReddy2015 (help) documents this as a genuine journalistic shorthand. But it is long past the time that we should have formally adopted rules against slang article titles, given how inevitably bad they have always turned out to be over the years. Reddy 2015, p. 109 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFReddy2015 (help) indicates that "cow belt" is pejorative slang, and talks of a Hindi belt. That latter turns up in things like Harrison 2015, p. 305 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHarrison2015 (help), which documents K. Kelappan's view of the Hindi belt. Given that sources such as West 2010, p. 281 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWest2010 (help) (the author being an anthropology professor) and many others use the names synonymously, and given that Reddy 2015, p. 109 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFReddy2015 (help) (the author being a journalist) points out that "cow belt" is pejorative for Hindi belt, the fact that this should be a redirect, and the redirect target, seem plainly indicated by how subject experts have documented this. Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reddy, Kovuuri G. (2015). Handbook of Journalism and Media: India, Bharat, Hindustan. Vikas Publishing House. ISBN 9789325982383.
- Harrison, Selig S. (2015). India: The Most Dangerous Decades. Princeton Legacy Library. Vol. 2233. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400877805.
- West, Barbara A. (2010). "Hindi". Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 9781438119137. so-called Hindi belt or cow belt
Keep this is notable enough. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BIMARU states per the rationales shared at the RfD. The subject does not appear to independently pass GNG, with only passing mentions in sources and no focused discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:Uncle G you say it's fairly obvious but it's not despite your admirable investigation. I gather you want to turn this page into a Redirect but to what redirect target? The one proposed in the nominator's statement or to the previous redirect target? Or another one entirely?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this not just an alternative name for the Hindi Belt? Is there something I'm missing here? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The term seems to be used interchangeably in some contexts, but is typically used to refer to a particular region that is a subset of the Hindi belt. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, although I thought that the quotation and the fact that I said that they were synonyms made it obvious, per Reddy 2015, p. 109 and West 2010, p. 281 the "cow belt" is the Hindi belt, just a pejorative name for it. Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects. Reddy 2015, p. 109 draws a distinction between the Hindi belt a.k.a. Hindi heartland, including Delhi and Chhattisgarh, and the BIMARU states, not including those. But that's another discussion, about two other pages. Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hindi Belt and/or selectively merge there. If this is simply a slang term for a region referred to by a more common name, it might be better to mention it within the article with broader scope that provides more context rather than forking it out into its own article. Sources are describing the two as alternative names for one another, and I'm not really seeing the nominated article as being about the (oft-)pejorative title, so I think we've essentially got duplicate article subjects at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Liz's relisting comment below, I'm OK with BIMARU states, though I do think Hindi Belt is more precise. I'd be fine hashing out this nuance at RfD. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please not send this back to RfD, this AfD was only opened because of an RfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three different redirect target articles mentioned in this discussion. If this closes as Redirect, we need to coalesce opinion on one article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hindi belt: Since this is simply a (junior and pejorative) synonym for the existing article Hindi belt, we should simply redirect to avoid a content fork. I agree with the opinion above that we should be extremely circumspect about adopting a pejorative title as an article name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Pagbilao#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talipan National High School

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

Challenged for sources since 2010. No reliable source hits in GNews and GNews Archives. Strongest cite found in GBooks was a 2021 study was conducted in that high school.

Alternatively, redirect to Pagbilao#Education. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete- No sources since 2010 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HueMan1 (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pagbilao#Education as nominator suggests. The school verifiably exists. Talipan barangay if created would be a better target. Rupples (talk) 02:22, 8 November 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous PR

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

No way near meeting WP:CORP SmartSE (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Advertising, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are routine announcements or mentions. Nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning delete,~~ but ProQuest is down so not confident. —siro χ o 04:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this. I had thought there were enough sources to justify a stub being created, but I can appreciate there probably aren't. The article was flagged after I first published it because the tone wasn't correct- but the editor who flagged it then didn't have an issue with the sources, so I assumed they were good enough. Can we move it into draft space in case there are ever better sources in the future or does it need deleting? Editing84 (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Editing84's request. —siro χ o 10:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks- have moved back to draftspace. Not sure if I should remove the deletion tag or not so have left it for now, apologies if that's messy. Editing84 (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing84, do not move an article that is being discussed at an AFD, especially since you have commented here. There is no reason to close this AFD early and never by an editor that one could consider to be INVOLVED. Your page move has been reverted by another editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realised that after it was reverted- apologies, I just read the comment by Siroxo as a directive without realising the discussion was ongoing. Obviously happy to wait it out for as long as needed. Thanks for the clarification. Editing84 (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure draftify is the best option here. It was already draftified once and creator moved it to back to mainspace five days later. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- that was also due to my misunderstanding of the draftify/discussion process. I didn't hear back again from the editor who draftified it after they explained the amendments that needed to be made. No official discussion with other editors seemed to be taking place and they didn't respond either way after I said I had made the amendments and moved it back into mainspace. I assumed they would have said at that point if it needed to stay as a draft. I just wanted to clarify what happened and why. I would have happily left it in drafts for it to be added to over time had I realised- sorry again. Editing84 (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is fine. Give the editor a chance to work on it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this would be the second time sending back to draft. As company was founded in 2008 and isn't notable (imho) I am unsure of what else could be accomplished in draft space. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping it would go through the AfC process again before the draft is accepted, was my understanding of the process. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify although based on my searching I can't see any potential sources that may be used to establish notability as per GNG/WP:NCORP (especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND for "Independent Content") but perhaps the author will have better luck so no harm giving them an opportunity to try. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What a surprise - a PR company relies on pseudo PRs sources. Nowhere near good enough. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Meakin

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

Meakin never broke into the top 100 of the world snooker rankings. Current references don't amount to significant coverage per WP:GNG and my WP:BEFORE search failed to uncover anything that would contribute to notability. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cue sports. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Nayak

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

Zero indication of any substantial independent coverage as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Hardly anything to suggest notability, and it seems to have a serious problem with sourcing and WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ which does not preclude a redirect if sourcing is found to be insufficient Star Mississippi 03:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswat Vidyalaya

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Goa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in the past, schools in India have had a fair amount of coverage discovered in ProQuest, which is down for TWL right now, so we might want to take this one slowly. —siro χ o 04:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mapusa#Education if insufficient coverage to establish notability. The college and high school exists. Rupples (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source. Found this [33]. Snippet view. Can't track the whole book to see if additional content but have added to article. Rupples (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is indeed a lot of coverage on ProQuest. Eg. A protest: [34]. Sports [35][36] etc. Other local coverage: [37][38]. There's a lot more there to sort through as well. —siro χ o 04:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Also moving towards a keep, but the article needs a bit more usable sourcing. As of now, it's not quite there. Rupples (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A second opinion on these newly located sources would be helpful as well as an assessment if they provide adequate SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mapusa#Education. Routine news any school would receive does not establish notability. Fails GNG and NORG, nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of largest exoplanets. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. In my reading of the discussion, it seems most participants would be happy with this result, even if it wasn't proposed explicitly. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most massive exoplanets

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

It is difucult to distinguish a massive planet and a brown dwarf. However, it is estimated that the most massive exoplanets have a mass of around 13 Jupiter masses (but this is highly uncertain anyway). Despite this, the article has tens of objects with a mass higher than that. Many objects (such as GQ Lupi b/C) are often considered to be BDs but sometimes are considered to be planets as well but yet they are still here.Diamantinasaurus (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like a WP:POVFORK, but it also might have enough notability to last. I don't know enough about the policies surrounding space in the science community. However, the nom makes it just sound like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conyo14 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. This meets NLIST with a google news search. I think we could require every entry to have an reliable source declaring it as an exoplanet. AFAICT, I think the 13 Jupiter cutoff isn't widely agreed upon, so we probably shouldn't strictly require it, though maybe there's a place for distinguishing various cutoffs in the list. —siro χ o 00:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm skeptical of the validity of this list. For example, HD 162020 b is now known to be a red dwarf. HIP 5158 c only has a minimum mass, but is listed as if the mass is well known. CT Cha b could be a brown dwarf or a planet; it's not clear. I think the list should only include objects that are conclusively known to be exoplanets with a well-bounded mass estimate. Praemonitus (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is effectively just a "list of objects between 10 and 30 Jupiter masses that orbit stars", and there isn't really a better way to make a "list of most massive exoplanets". Whether an object is considered a planet or a brown dwarf depends on either how it formed (while we can make some reasonable guesses, this isn't conclusively known) or a mass cutoff (the IAU uses 13 Jupiter masses, the NASA Exoplanet Archive uses 30). Maybe "objects described as planets in the scientific literature"? Leaning delete. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of largest exoplanets. Owen× ☎ 00:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as recommended above. Orientls (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as an alternative to closing this discussion as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per inherent problems raised by Praemonitus. It is often not possible to get a precise estimate of a planet's mass. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Secret (app). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Byttow

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

Pro forma nomination on behalf of 69.149.121.20, who attempted to transclude an AfD for this article to the AfD logpage in this diff.

Their rationale was: "talk page + talk page for user that made the page indicate there was discussion about deletion due to a lack of noteworthiness, but nothing was documented about why the page was kept over the past few years". jp×g 🗯️ 01:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. jp×g 🗯️ 01:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not an expert of WP:BIO but this reads like a Linkedin page of the person's various professional movements and not his independent contributions or impact. I've not done a WP:BEFORE but at least on the available sources it looks like there is some coverage from reliable sources, but heavily leaning into the context of his involvement with Secret, so the few relevant sources could be Merged there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per ＶＲＸＣＥＳQuestions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:21, 3 November 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.

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saraswat Vidyalaya}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most massive exoplanets}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Byttow}}