Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 01	October 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 merge to Makua people#Religion. Star Mississippi 14:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muluku

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

This has been flagged as a potential hoax. Not only has the article been an unsourced WP:PERMASTUB since its creation in May 2004, but a search for "Muluku Mozambique" or "Muluku god" or anything come to that mostly returns results that can be traced back to the article itself. There is apparently an OUP book that mentions Muluku, but I’m unable to access it and therefore cannot be sure of its veracity.

This might have been a partial name-change of Nana Buluku. Furthermore, the traditional Makua religion does not have a god of creation per se. The article has not been edited that much since its creation, which is always a red flag, and the writing is some of the worst I’ve ever seen for any Wikipedia article. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Religion, and Africa. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I poked around Google Books and managed to track down plenty of snippets and previews that back up the story. Here's a few:

Animals in Religion: Devotion, Symbol and Ritual, published 2016[1]
A Visual Guide to Evolution and Genetics, published 2018[2]
African Mythology, A to Z[3]
This one is the real kicker as it was published in 1979, so no chance of a Wikipedia hoax corrupting it. Mythologies of the World: A Concise Encyclopedia[4]

I think there are enough sources to make an article viable, although it being all but abandoned for 18 years might make finding editors dicey. Maybe the wikiprojects for Mozambique, mythology, or religion would be interested. Blue Edits (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. There is nothing worth saving in this article, except maybe the first sentence if it were cited, but we should leave a blank slate for any future article. Ovinus (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was wrong! To me, this case is reminiscent of Ruda Real: a likely real entity got corrupted into a fictitious story on Wikipedia.

The 1979 book is an excellent find! Even so, I’m not sure this is notable enough. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Makua people#Religion. I've copyedited the article and added some of the sources found by Blue Edits and the OP. Not a hoax, but it doesn't seem likely that this article will ever be more than a paragraph long, so I think it would make sense to merge it. (See also Minepa.) Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Delete? Merge? They all have their advocates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Sojourner. Makua people is already a pretty short article, no need to splinter everything Wikipedia has on them into substubs. BrigadierG (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giulio Camarlinghi

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

De-PRODded by Das osmnezz with the rationale: "has Italian sources and played for fully pro Italian Serie C which is regarded as one of best third tiers worldwide and an Italian Serie B team which is regarded as one of best second tiers worldwide and has ongoing career"

The article previously barely scraped by old, deprecated NFOOTY guidelines because Camarlinghi made one appearance in the third-tier, professional Serie C. He has not played in the Serie B. A web search didn't turn up any WP:SIGCOV. The article would seem to fail WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a bog-standard transfer announcement in Sport Valdarno and a story about him being sent off for urinating in La Provincia. Is anything better available? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like the article had a good bit of sabotage in the history, upon review, this is equivalent of a when we have deleted a British player who played one league two game and gone into non-league. I really don't see anything that suggests he can pass GNG what-so-ever. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ProfitKey International

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

Notability isn't established through the article, only sources I could find outside of Wikipedia and mirrors are CrunchBase, LinkedIn, etc. DizzyTheMan (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Hampshire. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any coverage of note either. Doesn't seem notable. Blue Edits (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found one good reference but its an ebook. Even isolating only the first name of the company did not reveal more than 2 pages of hits on Google News, none of which met WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poison (German band)

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

German band fails WP:BAND, unlike the American band. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nom. Not notable --FMSky (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in reliable sources. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fulton School

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

only source in article is a database. fails wp:nschool. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 12:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and United States of America. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 12:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school has recently merged with its sister school in Chesterfield, and I found 3 good sources explaining the history of the school. Most other articles available on newspapers.com were about individual students' golf and soccer accomplishments, or listing of graduating seniors at commencement times. Anyway, the article passes WP:GNG, the guideline that applies to non-profit schools. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four sources:
- "R.G. Brinkman building new Chesterfield Day School". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 1999-02-14. p. 73. Retrieved 2022-10-14.
- "Area private schools have much to offer". St. Louis Jewish Light. 2006-08-23. pp. A16. Retrieved 2022-10-14.
- Glenn, Reid (October 11, 2021). "St. Albans school merging with Chesterfield school, campus to be sold". The Missourian. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
- Krueger, Bonnie (October 20, 2021). "The Fulton School, Chesterfield Day School to merge". WestNewsMagazine.com. Retrieved 2022-10-14.
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belated life

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

PROD removed with rationale "sources deserve review by others".

Let's review these sources and find out if this film is notable enough to have the notability tag removed and the article kept, or if the film should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Uzbekistan, and Russia. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The win at the Omsk film festival would seem notable. Well-sourced as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Taste of Relation

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

PROD removed with rationale "remove prod - has some reasonably substantive reviews, shoudl probably go to AfD at minimum."

Let's decide if the reviews are enough to pass WP:NFILM and have the notability tag removed, or if the article should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Donaldd23: The review websites looks iffy. Looking at this, it appears to me that the reviewing guidelines is low, I doubt that reviewers are professional looking at here. This is also a minor festival site. The winning of the California Film Awards gives me pause on deletion. I disagree that it should be considered as especially major to meet WP:NFILM criteria 3. However, it does have a WP article, compare WP:NWEB, which clarifies that when an award has a WP article it should be considered significant. On the contrary, the article for the award is sourced from non-independent refs. So I do agree that the notability here is doubtful, but if it's agreed that the award fails to meet WP:NFILM I would then vote delete. However, I do weakly concur with the deprod- this has some reviews of iffy notability and awards that could go either way, therefore, deletion is not uncontroversial IMHO. VickKiang (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that delete is more popular, I'd be happy to change my vote to weak delete. VickKiang (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is referenced almost entirely to directory entries and online stores like Amazon or Best Buy, none of which are support for notability — and the only two sources that are in any way analytical come from sources whose reliability for the purposes of WP:GNG is at best dubious. The rule isn't that film reviews can come from just anywhere — it's that they have to come from reliable sources. And even awards aren't necessarily automatic notability clinchers either — "notability because awards" doesn't indiscriminately attach to just every award that exists, but looks for either (a) top level national film awards like the Oscars, the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards, or (b) a narrow tier of internationally prominent film festivals (Berlin, Cannes, TIFF, Sundance, etc.) that get media coverage, and a film cannot accrue notability on the basis of awards that have to be sourced to the festival's own self-published website about itself because media coverage about the award win is nonexistent. That is, in order to make a film notable for winning an award, it is necessary to prove that the award itself is a notable one in the first place, which hasn't been shown by any sources here. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Slater Jewell-Kemker as it seems no one objects to this. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Unstoppable

AfDs for this article:

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

First nomination ended in no consensus, but notability question has remained since December 2021. I found no evidence of this film passing WP:NFILM. Lots of awards listed, but all are small, minor awards. Not every award is notable as anyone can give out an award. Let's decide once and for all if this film should be kept and have the notability tag removed, or if it should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Environment, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing here was never solid or notability-building in the first place — the strongest source is a glancing namecheck of the film's existence in a fairly short blurb about the filmmaker's participation in an event nestled inside a not-otherwise-about-her liveblog of the overall event, which isn't enough — but the first discussion ended up landing no consensus because nobody weighed in at all besides me and one other user. I do still believe it's a delete, for the record, but as the nominator the first time I'd really just be repeating myself if I exhaustively listed all the problems with each individual source, so let's just leave it at "everything I said in the first discussion still applies". Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant international coverage, in the USA, and in Australia. There's also no shortage of blurbs from renowned sources around the world, such as Variety, Al Jazeera, Toronto Star, Avanti and Marie Claire; while they don't meet GNG, does note that there's international interest. Also, why would this ever be a delete? How would it not be a redirect to Slater Jewell-Kemker? Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are all either passing mentions, or articles about the participants in the documentary...not the documentary itself. The "significant" coverage you pointed out...the CNN and Australian articles are about the director. They would help her article pass any notability question...but they do not support notability for this film. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then how, User:Donaldd23 could this possibly be a delete, rather than a redirect - or a merge? Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are viable options too. My point is that the film does not stand on its own and should not have its own article. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Aman

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

Article about a political figure notable only as a non-winning candidate for mayor of a city. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and a candidate must either (a) demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons, or (b) show a credible reason why his candidacy should be seen as much more special than most other people's candidacies. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (his own LinkedIn, the county elections office) with the purely run of the mill volume and depth local coverage that any mayoral candidate would merely be expected to have in their local media. Nothing here is "inherently" notable at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed political candidate, routine employment history otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not win the 2017 Atlanta mayoral election. Coverage does not indicate anything special or unique about his candidacy. --Enos733 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As User Enos733 said, not notable as he didn't win the election. Contributor008 (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NPOL outright. The article also fails WP:GNG. There was some significant coverage in Creative Loafing and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, both of which did go into some detail about him, but outside of those two pieces I can't find any significant third-party coverage, and WP:GNG requires multiple of such references; two doesn't cut it. When you take into account that these are routine candidate pieces from local news sources during an election cycle, it further diminishes the significance of these two references. Per Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Political candidates, this coverage is routine and to be expected, and is not something that shows notability. - Aoidh (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has fail GNG. Gurin Hawa Mota (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Toshikenan, see investigation)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination and all the delete comments. Fifthapril (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above , not notable. Alex-h (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nila (character)

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

Fictional character with just one film appearance (2.0 (film)). Does not meet WP:GNG as it lacks independent coverage in reliable sources including enough real-world/out-of-universe perspective. Most of the content is sourced from interviews/primary sources which do not establish notability.

Stand-alone article is not warranted in any case per WP:NOPAGE as it can be covered in the film article. Blazin777 (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Blazin777:, I understand your point that only one film of the character made you feel that the it is not suitable of having a Wikipedia page. But the fact is it is part of a film series and it may significantly have a future apperance in the project as part of the film series/cinematic universe. Also may I know why the Appearance part of the song is removed from the page (since that added more importantance to the character in connection with the protagonist)

Please provide your view and rationale.

Thank you. 456legend(talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough to show the character is notable. Need to have secondary sources that are focused on the character, not the people playing that character. Has only appeared in one film. Not enough to show independent notability. Ravensfire (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: okay fine sir. I understood the reason. Delete it. I have no points to put in further. Thank you

Delete I would have usually advocated a redirect but Nila is too common of a character name for this. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fictional character that has only appeared in a single film, and has no sources that would indicate that she is notable enough to warrant an individual article. As mentioned above, Nila is too common of a name for multiple fictional characters for a Redirect to be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BrandX.com

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

Company which fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, the only coverage available consists of directory listings and routine announcements in unreliable trade publications. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability. The two references are promotional interviews rather than independent significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only references I can find the meet WP:ORGCRIT are ones about the individual brands and only mention the parent (BrandX) in passing as the owner. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep the content, but potentially rename. There isn't a scenario where this content will be deleted. Discussion on whether to rename or create an article about the incident and merge it can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Crockwell

Nominating for procedural reasons, I know the article is well sourced but I am not sure it meets WIKI:GNG, WIKI:CRIME, or WIKI:BIO.--IMR2000 (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not heard of the event, coverage seems to be purely local sources. Although it is going to the provincial Supreme Court, so that's something. Would like to see coverage from outside the area to show it was a notable event. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the Globe and Mail - the largest national newspaper in Canada, local. Or some of the Toronto-based CBC coverage (most of the coverage is indeed from Newfoundland, but some of the CBC coverage is very national - and the story did receive national attention at the time). I won't opine of the worthiness of the article though - I'm not well versed enough in crime. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The standoff appears to clearly be notable, and I think that the subject would be better covered in an article about the event rather than having a standalone article. He's not a WP:BLP1E; he has received coverage outside of the context of the standoff, but the extent has been much more minor. That being said, no page for the event yet exists, and I would hesitate to delete a notable article on the basis that some merge with a not yet existing article would be a potentially better way of providing coverage. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to an event page. Passes WP:SIGCOV. There's not really a policy based reason to delete or move this page as an WP:ATD. We have enough WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage across multiple events to prove notability for a biography page per WP:BASIC, and the coverage is sufficiently national in scope to pass criteria 1 of WP:CRIMINAL. That said per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I do think we might achieve better coverage for editorial reasons as an event page rather than a biographical entry.4meter4 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is no event article to move this to. Should this article title just be changed so it is about the event instead of the individual? I don't see a lot of consensus for any particular action right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the event. The current sources still leave some uncertainty notability, however the event is more likely to be notable than the individual, due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Serene Day

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

The only source, ever, mentioning this proposed event appears to be the proposal itself, in the newsletter of an organization that... is proud to have some tenuous connection to some UN events, I guess? [5] It's a bit of a rabbit hole. In any case, not a chance at notability after removing all the vaguely related padding in the article (most of which I already cut out). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elmidae,

Thank you very much for reviewing the page.

The original source of this proposed event appears in the video of the UN Web TV, starting at time 3045:

https://media.un.org/en/asset/k1n/k1nbhfzuj4?kalturaStartTime=3045

The talk by Dr. Chaitanya Hiremath is about 4 minutes. He was introduced and thanked by the moderator of the meeting on Interactive dialogue of the General Assembly on Harmony with Nature in Commemoration of International Mother Earth Day on 22 April 2022.

Dr. Hiremath is the founder and president of 501c3 non-profit organization, SEALOEarth. This organization in Special Consultative Status with UN ECOSOC since 2017.

https://sealoearth.org/doc/SpecialConsultativeStatus2017.pdf

Hope this proof of the proposed event is sufficient to keep the page on International Serene Day on Wikipedia.

Thank you. Kugold (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Mentioning something in a speech is not sufficient to make it WP:NOTABLE. We require a good deal of coverage by third-party, uninvolved sources for that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, it is unfortunate that multiple he-said-she-said articles are preferred over a verifiable and independent source aka straight from the horse's mouth. There is a difference between a light sprinkle and a heavy shower. It is not speech on TikTok, it was a presentation on the United Nations (UN) Web TV translated in multiple languages at the same time. Thank you. Kugold (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found, doesn't appear to have taken off as a concept. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source IS found - the United Nations (UN) Web TV translated in multiple languages. Also, the comment "doesn't appear to have taken off as a concept" contradicts the Wikipedia policy, namely, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or POPULARITY". Kugold (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source. Singular. Featuring the originator. Do you not see the problem with that? No one else has bothered to talk about it. That is what it comes down to. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, just reiterating the policy, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or POPULARITY".

Clearly, the comment "No one else has bothered to talk about it. That is what it comes down to" refers to POPULARITY.

Also, according to the policy, "Primary sources that have been REPUTABLY published may be USED in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them".

Most would agree that the United Nations (UN) is REPUTABLE.

Therefore, this page is acceptable and deserves to be kept.

Thank you for your consideration. Kugold (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My consideration says that you are flailing around trying to extract notability from a single, primary source. This notion culd be as "popular" as free beer, and we still couldn't have an article on it unless a sufficient number of independent sources covering it exist. Or the other way round, something may be hugely unpopular but if enough sources write about it, we can have an article. You can accept that or not, but it won't change how your article is perceived and assessed here. Over and out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in independent, secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant third-party coverage in sources that meet WP:RS. Look at the article creator's contributions, it's highly likely that they are Chaitanya Hiremath and that this is nothing more than self-promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Pettigrew

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

WP:N. He hasn't played at a fully-professional level in Scotland - the highest league level he has played in is Scottish League Two, the fourth tier of the Scottish football league system. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether he has played professionally or not is irrelevant. He hasn't, but NFOOTY is no longer in force, so it's beside the point. However, I can't find enough significant coverage of this player. His "ongoing career" in Scottish non league is also completely irrelevant to establishing notability. This source mentions Pettigrew a few times but also quotes him and his employers quite heavily, so I'm not sure. Regardless, we need more to demonstrate notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to get off topic, but I don't get involved in deletion discussions very often. How can a major professional sport not have a guideline for deciding who or what is notable? This is absurd. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It all comes under SPORTCRIT and BASIC now, but I don't know the ins and outs of why that decision was made. GiantSnowman could possibly point you in the right direction. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NFOOTBALL has been abolished following a RFC. Giant Snowman 09:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Bondar

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

Fails WP:GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a trivial mention in RFS but not much else Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We seem to have reached the final whistle here. The standard here is GNG. The keep votes talk about a single source or sources must exist, which is not an objective test of passing GNG. Sourcing that meets GNG has not been provided here so the arguments that this fails GNG prevail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoli Rozhkov

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

Fails WP:GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're not able to run the Russian sources then this nomination is a bias one in my opinion. A lot of top flight Russian games, extensive career, I find it hard to believe that he can not pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into whether the article can pass the GNG, and it looks likely (but my Russian-language coverage searches are hampered due to the current state of Russian websites). That said, Rozhkov never played in the Russian top flight - he played 84 second division matches (70 with Khimki and 14 with Torpedo-Viktoria NN) but everything else was in the third division or below. Jogurney (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, as per quick look at Russian Wikipedia page.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unlike many of the other articles this editor created that are currently nominated for deletion, this involves a former footballer who appears to have played for a couple of seasons in the Russian second division (with Khimki and Torpedo-Viktoria NN) although he appears to have been a reserve at that point. As such, it likely would have satisfied NFOOTBALL prior to its deprecation. A quick search shows recent coverage of his coaching career, but I'll need some time to look for coverage on his playing career. Jogurney (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per OneI, the goalposts have moved on this type of article. See what I did there? Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've tried to find SIGCOV, and I think the two articles I added to Rozhkov's article get us just about there. The sovsport.ru article is pretty short, but I did particularly enjoy reading about how he accidentally threw the ball into his own net to knock his club out of the cup ;). @GiantSnowman, you may want to review those articles. Jogurney (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - btw, looking at the Russian article, it has a single reference, which is just a short blurb (the other is a link to a wikipage), and then an interview in the final section. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No admin has decided to close this discussion all day so I'm giving it another week for consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source mentioned above seems very good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs)
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:SIGCOV. I would not consider the Russian language source reliable as it cites a wiki page as source, and has an interview section which lacks independence. As such we lack multiple pieces of reliable independent RS to pass our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Korepov

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

Fails WP:GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom does not meet GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Belyayev

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

Fails WP:GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Mishukov (footballer)

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

Another semi-pro footballer with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC provided. Searches of "Иван Мишуков" (including in conjunction with "Торпедо", his current club) in multiple search engines failed to yield even one instance of significant coverage. Closest thing is Live Journal, which can be dismissed as it's a social media site so is excluded from WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Gloydman

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

Semi-pro with no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Searches of "Никита Глойдман" in multiple search engines did not yield any significant coverage. Best source I can find is Tula Sport which is both local and trivial. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Usanov

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

Semi-pro footballer with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Sent to draft by User:Onel5969 but moved back with no significant improvement. Would have failed the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline as well.

Russian searches in Google News and DDG yielded nothing useful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the WP:GNG. Fifthapril (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filipp Marayev

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

PROD rationale by User:Jogurney Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Contested with comment has Russian sources and played in fully pro Russian third tier and has ongoing career which is a reference to the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline, which has been redundant for several months now. Interestingly, the Russian third tier was removed from WP:FPL after strong consensus so the PROD removal comment is wrong on at least two counts. The best sources on him are the local news articles Online Vologda and Vologda Poisk but neither article is substantial in terms of coverage. Routine injury and transfer announcements are almost always dismissed at football AfDs. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jota Agostinho

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

Played one professional game then played as an amateur for the rest of his career. No luck finding anything under "Jota Agostinho" and searching "Jota" in conjunction with the clubs that he played for doesn't yield anything useful either. Plenty of coverage on similarly-named players like Jota (footballer, born 1999), Jota Gonçalves and Diogo Jota but nothing about this one. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG as far as I can see. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Smiling Friends. ✗plicit 11:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond's Big Day Out

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

I cannot see in any way how this episode is notable. Bubbleblabber.com is an unreliable source (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Blood, Old Souls) and the Collider review could probably easily fit into the main Smiling Friends article. I'd suggest a redirect to the main series article. wizzito | say hello! 08:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. wizzito | say hello! 08:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smiling Friends - The plot summary is identical to the summary of the episode that already exists at the main page. The reception section consists of one non-reliable source, and one article that discusses the entirety of the first season as a whole that, while probably being an OK source to use on the main series page, does not demonstrate any particular notability for this episode specifically that would justify splitting it out into its own article. Searching for additional sources brings up similar articles - mentions of it in articles that talk about the entirety of the series, but nothing in-depth about it, specifically, that would suggest that a split is warranted. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - even the page creator knew this was unlikely to be notable, if this edit summary is any indication. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raise5

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

Not meeting WP:GNG. The sources are scarce, self-referencing is too heavy (50% references go to raise5 website). Several brief mentions in huffpost are not enough too. Assirian cat (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

raise5 website now appears to be of another company. its says: Raise5.com is a data-driven platform which provides better online shopping experience. The wikipedia page says: Raise5 is an organization that allows individuals and groups to fundraise for charities and non-profits through micro-volunteering. Assirian cat (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is written from primary sources. Nothing notable found, not GNG. --YouVeNeverSeenBetter (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at Wayback machine, the website of the Raise5 described in this article was still showing people offering services until mid 2017, when it disappeared, then a distinct shopping site with a different logo commenced with their website in April 2019. The former start-up won a "Screw Business As Usual" start-up competition in 2012, rewarded by an African trip the following year with Richard Branson [6], but I don't think that or the associated start-up publicity is evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Model-Glue

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

Not a notable framework by any means. Found one mention on Google Books (which was written by its creators) and a single TechRepublic article from 2006. Lacks independent, significant coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Internet, and Software. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the notability is not established. Searching for reliable sources will not help. --Assirian cat (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. Seems like someone just wrote their own framework and tossed up an article to help get the word out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK#4. ✗plicit 23:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somashekhar SP

AfDs for this article:

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

My BFORE search found ,This doctor does not satisfy WP:GNG. and it is an advertisement more than an article. Maximum references used are self published. NextStepfor (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) — NextStepfor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Medicine, and India. NextStepfor (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria 8 of WP:NACADEMIC. Reasonable number of citations (999 on ResearchGate). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasios Raptis

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

No more than a couple namechecks in match reports, fails GNG. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage. Not okay to have BLPs sourced only to databases. Ovinus (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is in a very bad shape. It was created in 2013 and no information has been added since then. Fifthapril (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Dawson

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

I admit my unfamiliarity with the sources that would be typical of an article on a fashion model so my ability to perform a WP:BEFORE search is somewhat limited, but so far as I can tell the sources present are no good (including the Daily Record article) for proving notability. In my search, I didn't see anything that looked like it would support this article, but again I could be mistaken in that regard. A redirect to Virgil_Howe#Personal_life seems most appropriate. QuietHere (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and England. QuietHere (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be almost no references here at all. scope_creep^Talk 10:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A new reference from Metro has been added by Milowent. Per WP:METRO, this source is considered generally unreliable. QuietHere (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't actually naked?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. The problem isn't with the facts, it's with the source not showing an increase in notability for the subject because it is considered unreliable. QuietHere (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke. I think any news coverage can count towards notability, even if lesser sources may not count for much. User:Bessiya who seems to have shepherded it over the past 13 years has not appeared, and this article just hasn't piqued my interest enough to try to rescue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would also support a straight delete if @Scope creep doesn't think my proposed redirect target is appropriate for some reason. I figure redirecting there is the right move since they were married and had a kid together, but if there's disagreement on that then I'd like to hear it. QuietHere (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Metro is non-RS. Ref 1,4 and 7 are non-rs. Metro can't count towards notability as its non-rs. scope_creep^Talk 07:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing for her, I keep getting hits for Dawson's Creek, the tv show. She appears to have dropped off the radar. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BPM Model School

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that were present were either primary or school/college databases. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Kerala. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd expect to find something under Google Scholar for a Model School. There are none per my search. 174.212.228.160 (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find independent significant coverage. Ovinus (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — tagged it for speedy delete once. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Last of the Jedi

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

See maintenance tags. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jude Watson, should probably still have a bit of a blurb but it doesn't appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Especially considering each book has its own individual article. Could probably merge a lot of them or just straight redirect depending on quality of sourcing. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Another Cringy Username: The book titles in the Jude Watson article all redirect here, so it does not seem to be the case that "each book has its own individual article". Or did I miss them? Daranios (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! A lot of series have individual articles for each book, so I just saw the live links and assumed. Thank you for the correction! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - without stating any preference, I am compelled to say that after going to article to check those tags, I was drawn into reading it (article) in its entirety - as someone who didn't know about the work, I found it interesting.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jude Watson or keep: None of the tags as such are a reason for deletion, but rather the indicated problems should be fixed through editing. The main question is if there are secondary sources which provide enough information so they can be fixed, as a proper WP:BEFORE search would show, which should be done prior to the nomination. In our case, such a search should include the individual books, as they are put together here in a summary article on the series in accordance with WP:ATD-M. This and this article have some relevant content. Popular Series Fiction for Middle School and Teen Readers is indicated by Google books to have content, but I don't have access. Is there more? Daranios (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think the series is just about notable enough per WP:NBOOKS and per Thebiguglyalien, WP:DINC. Though the article does need significant help because it does seem to be little more than plot summaries at present. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some cleanup and additional information, not deletion. TITANOSAURUS 05:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ülo Adamson

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. I don't trust myself to do a proper Estonian WP:BEFORE search, but see discussion at User_talk:Estopedist1#Ülo_Adamson from people who know better. Ovinus (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Estonia. Ovinus (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I prodded it, which was reverted without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Estonian resistance fighter fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Coates

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

American football player that does not meet WP:GNG. He is undrafted and though he's been signed by the Seahawks, he has yet to play a single NFL game. The coverage that exists is routine (e.g. game reports from his time at West Florida) and not sustained, in-depth coverage of Coates. Pichpich (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - ~~Doesn't meet WP:GNG Couldn't find any sources either, and the source used is also a trivial mention that dissatisfies WP:SPORTCRIT~~ Keep per the sources belowVTVL (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several sources that discuss him in detail dating back to 2017 [7][8][9][10] Alvaldi (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG per Alvaldi. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, article has been improved significantly with more sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Alvaldi's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage provided in article surpassess WP:GNG and is far more than so-called "routine coverage" with several feature articles covering hte subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of England national amateur football team hat-tricks

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

This list fails WP:GNG as all of these hat-tricks were scored in amateur/non-professional/B-team matches instead of senior/A-team ones. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is flawed, articles about amateur football can and do meet GNG - as this one does. Giant Snowman 07:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nomination is flawed in implying that this covers "non-senior" football, the suggestion being that the amateur football covered here is of the low-skilled "Sunday morning in the park" variety. This is not the case - in its heyday the England amateur team was essentially considered parallel to the professional team and routinely beat the professional national teams of other nations, often by large margins. All the games listed here are considered full senior international matches by the other nations involved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination may be flawed, but so are the keep rationales above (WP:ITSNOTABLE). This is a pretty bad failure of WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NLIST, and WP:GNG. Despite the claim that this meets GNG, I've been able to find no significant coverage that discusses the topic of hat tricks scored by players on the England amateur soccer team, let alone even collates them into a table (which still wouldn't be enough). Although granted, this is old stuff, so if someone can find offline sources, I might be willing to reconsider. But as it stands, these entries have been culled from various databases. Going through box scores to see who got a hat trick may get into WP:NOR territory, and it certainly doesn't look good in terms of notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic list. GenuineArt (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh*...WP:BELONG. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 35 for failing WP:NLIST to the point that the article resorts to WP:SYNTH from game score records since no source directly discusses the subject in the first place. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The three rationales above, as the IP pointed out, are pretty lacking (as is the nomination itself). Yes, amateur football can be notable, but this lacks relevant sources and actually seems to be pure WP:SYNTH. Another rationale was that it's an "encyclopedic list" without explaining why. There's no shortage of lists that can be created on Wikipedia. Unfortuanately, as a subject that hasn't been covered by reliable sources, this one fails to be encyclopedic. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per GiantSnowman, ChrisTheDude, and GenuineArt. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was incorrectly deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Vivian Woodward, which agreed to open a separate AfD here. I have filed a request at WP:RFU to restore it. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For those who say this meets the general notability guideline, with what sources? This? This? Unless you present something better, we have to go with the sourcing the article has, and there can be no doubt that what it has does not meet the GNG. czar 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for the time it was deleted/off view
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have doubts regarding WP:GNG and WP:LISTN because nobody has been able to provide WP:RS discussing this topic at length. What we have here is WP:SYNTH because the article creator has gone through every single amateur game themselves and picked out the hat-tricks and compiled the list themselves, meaning that the article violates Wikipedia policy so should be removed. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part merge to England national amateur football team. Firstly how on earth is this information violating WP:SYNTH, it doesn't employ any conclusion. It is simply factual information on who scored hat trick goals. WP:SYNTH is a floored argument for deleting this article. Secondly, the England national amateur football team is a small article, why isn't that improved before this article was created. I really suggest the content be merged over and worked on there to improve the article. There are several books out there with this information in them, history of English football is well covered, I also find arguments against GNG floored. This to me is all about where the information should be correctly located. I don't see a need for this to be in a separate article at this time. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with that as well to be honest. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would still oppose a merge. This is way too specialized of a statistic -- a brief mention of the team's top goal scorers is one thing, but for such a basic article, this would be pretty ridiculous to include. There are tons of other statistics that could be generated/included, but Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. And for the record, I don't think it's SYNTH, so much as outright OR. The fact that Wikipedia editors have to comb through bare match box scores to generate this is pretty telling. It's pretty easy to miss something, which makes verification of this information difficult. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. The content of this article seems largely inappropriate for inclusion on England national amateur football team as a giant table of every hat trick they performed seems out of place. W 42 13:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detention (2003 film)

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

Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Found only one review on Rotten Tomatoes. Needs two or more reviews in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a TV Guide review and a Video Business review. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would keep but that plot looks copied from a box. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, review at RT (as mentioned by nominator) and a second at TV Guide (as mentioned by Somebodyodkfkdt). Plot is almost 100% copied from IMdB, and needs to be rewritten. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw nomination per consensus and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tinci Materials

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

Non-notable company. Sources cited are routine business reporting and passing mentions. Search finds only more of the same, as well as the usual social media, directory, etc. listings, nothing even approaching RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and China. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see some coverage in Chinese-language sources: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. This is what I found with a quick search; a more thorough search for the Chinese name "天赐材料" might find more. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not refer to third-party significant coverage of the company. It presents what the company says about itself, which does not establish corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
2. "Tinci Materials analyst reports". Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
  This search page lists a large number of analyst reports about Tinci Materials.
  From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.
3. Han, Chen 韩晨 (2021-08-23). "天赐材料: 一体化布局降本增利，正极产能稳步扩张" [Tianci Materials: Integrated layout reduces costs and increases profits, and cathode production capacity expands steadily] (PDF). Southwest Securities 西南证券 (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
  The analyst report notes from Google Translate: "Profit forecast and investment advice. The company's electrolyte will continue to maintain rapid growth, while the production capacity reserves are abundant, The cathode material business will become a new growth point for the business in the long run, optimize the company's product structure, and further enhance the company's profitability. The compound growth rate of the company's total revenue in the next three years is 54%. Considering the company's leading electrolyte status, and the future development of the company's new business, we give the company 80 times PE in 2021, the target price is 167.20 yuan. Initial coverage with a "buy" rating. Risk warning: the risk of the company's production capacity not being released as scheduled ..."
4. "天賜材料增長勁大行齊唱好" [Strong growth of Tinci Materials, big banks sing in unison that it is good]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). 2021-08-27. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Tinci Materials (002709.SZ), the world's largest electrolyte manufacturer, reported stronger than expected results in the first half of the year, and continued to maintain high growth in its guidance for the third quarter. At the same time, it has received orders from many major manufacturers. After the results were announced, major banks worked together to hold and sing in unison that it is good. Tianci Materials was established in 2000 and entered the lithium ion electrolyte business in 2005. It is the largest electrolyte supplier of the battery leader CATL (300750.SZ), and is also the biggest competitor of CATL"
5. "西南证券给予天赐材料买入评级，高毛利水平延续，关注22H2产能释放" [Southwest Securities gives Tianci Materials a buy rating, the high gross profit level continues, focusing on the release of production capacity in 22H2]. National Business Daily (in Chinese). 2022-09-02. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Southwest Securities released a research report on September 2, saying that it gave Tianci Materials (002709.SZ, latest price: 47.14 yuan) a buy rating. The reasons for the rating mainly include: 1) The high gross profit level of electrolytes continues; 2) The expansion of iron phosphate production has accelerated, and sales have increased significantly; 3) The prices of daily chemical materials and special chemical raw materials have risen, and the gross profit margin has been under pressure. Risk warning: The production capacity is less than expected, the downstream demand is less than expected, the industry overcapacity leads to intensified market competition, and policy risks."
6. Peng, Guangchun 彭广春 (2022-01-21). "天赐材料(002709)：盈利持续高企一体化+新一代锂盐巩固竞争优势" [Tinci Materials (002709): Continued high profitability, integration + a new generation of lithium salts to consolidate competitive advantages] (in Chinese). Huachuang Securities [zh]. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26 – via Sina Corporation.
  The analyst report notes: "Considering that the company is a global electrolyte leader, and the production capacity of the key additive lithium hexafluorophosphate continues to be released and self-supplied, the company's performance is expected to increase significantly. Considering the valuation of comparable companies, we give the company 40 times PE in 2022, corresponding to the target price of 196.8 yuan, and maintain the "strong push" rating. Risk warning: global sales of new energy vehicles are lower than expected, and electrolyte prices have fallen."
7. Barns, Greg (June–July 2019). "Oz Minerals earns in from Cassini Resources at West Musgrave Project". Resource World Magazine. Vol. 17, no. 4. p. 33. Retrieved 2022-09-26 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "But not only has Cassini Resources attracted OZ Minerals to the West Musgrave Project, it also now has on its books Hong Kong-based Tinci (HK) Limited, a 100% subsidiary of Guangzhou Tinci Materials Technology. Tinci Materials is one of China's largest lithium-ion battery electrolyte manufacturers and is currently conducting a feasibility study for the production of high-quality nickel sulphate from nickel sulphide concentrate for the battery industry. Tinci participated in a recent AUD $7M placement to Asian investors."
8. Tang, Shihua (2021-08-24). Laine, Emmi; Xiao, Yi (eds.). "China's Tinci Surges to All-Time High After USD813 Million Plan to Hike Battery Materials Output". Yicai Global. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
  The article notes: "Tinci is a big provider of lithium hexafluorophosphate, a core material of battery electrolytes. ... Tinci had a 32 percent market share of battery electrolytes in China, and a 20 percent market share in the world as of December 2020, according to public information. The company's capacity was 106,000 tons of lithium-ion battery electrolytes, but it was expanding it by 350,000 tons at that time."
9. Liu, Xing 刘幸; Chen, Youzi 陈忧子 (2021-11-13). Wu, 吴诗航 Shihang (ed.). "穗7家企业入选"全国制造业单项冠军"名单" [Seven companies from Guangzhou were selected into the list of "National Manufacturing Individual Champions"]. Guangzhou Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-20. Retrieved 2022-09-26 – via Nanfang Daily.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Guangzhou Tinci High-tech Materials Co., Ltd. is the only company at home and abroad with the entire industry chain of lithium-ion battery electrolyte, the only designated supplier of Tesla in the world, and the main supplier of electrolyte in the Ningde era. Its products are exported to South Korea, Japan, and the United States. and many other countries. Last year, Tinci Materials had a global market share of 22% and a domestic market share of 32%."
10. Zhang, Yi 张艺 (2022-06-10). ""电解液一哥"天赐材料推最高5亿元回购计划，能重返千亿市值吗？" ["Elder Brother Electrolyte" Tianci Materials launched a repurchase plan of up to 500 million yuan, can it return to the market value of 100 billion yuan?]. Jiemian [zh] (in Chinese). Shanghai United Media Group. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Since then, the performance of Tinci Materials has continued to grow rapidly, but the stock price has been stagnant. ... However, the market value was cut in half in half a year, and it fell to a market value of 100 billion. What is the reason? The growth of Tianci Materials is inseparable from the rise of the "Ning Wang" Ningde era. Last year's annual report showed that about 5.6 billion yuan in sales revenue of Tinci Materials came from CATL, accounting for half of the annual revenue. In 2020, the sales volume of Tinci Materials' largest customer is only over 1 billion yuan, and its revenue accounts for 25.56%. Therefore, every move in the Ningde era also affects the heaven-sent materials that are deeply bound to it. In the first quarter of this year, the performance of CATL declined."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tinci Materials (simplified Chinese: 天赐材料; traditional Chinese: 天賜材料) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to evaluate the sources Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I do not think that we should keep articles on the basis of analyst reports, as these reports serve only to communicate financial projections and price an equity and do not generally demonstrate social importance of the subject; Cunard is completely wrong about this. However, the company is WP:LISTED and seems to have reliable sources that talk about it; I also prefer to err on the side of caution when considering foreign companies for which sourcing is harder and Wikipedia page creation for SEO is less likely. The article is weak though, and it needs to concentrate on more than just the financial history of the company. FalconK (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sundial Collective

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The Per WP:AUD, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. I am generally unable to find coverage of this company outside of local media; the sources in this article include small local newspaper Redding Record Searchlight and local television station KRCR-TV, and I'm not able to find coverage of this business outside of exclusively local stations and a trivial mention in a single trade journals (and, per WP:ORGIND there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability). Because this fails WP:NCORP, and WP:ORGCRIT notes that NCORP establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than we may see in other contexts, this should be deleted for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There could be more coverage as this store is being bought by a local tribal group. Only one maybe two of the sources are good enough to establish GNG.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
USA Today (redding.com)	Author is not connected to the topic	Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Unz	Article has only passing mention	✘ No
USA Today (redding.com)	Article is a video about this location by an established reporter	Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Unz	~ Video is a very brief interview with the owner but does not go in depth, honestly this is a bit of a gray area for me	~ Partial
ABC Affiliate (KRCR)	Author is established journalist	[[18]]	~ Video is about one minute long and talks about the opening of the store, does not go in depth but has interviews with the general manager	~ Partial
ABC Affiliate (KRCR)	Author is established journalist and is not the same author as previous article from this source	[[19]]	Article covers this store being bought by a local tribal group and goes in more depth than the previous article	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes: Thank you for the source assessment table. Is there a reason you're applying GNG rather than NCORP here? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's just what the template popped out, let me go back and see if it'll do SNG. Sorry if it caused any confusion, I completely agree with your assessment and nomination. The only reason I mentioned that there could be more coverage was incase someone had access to like a tribal newspaper that isn't online or something. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. With respect to tables, there is {{ORGCRIT assess table}}, but it's really heavy to use don't think that there's anything akin to the SA Table Generator script that currently works on it. Now that I'm thinking about it, I might have to try to create a modified version of that to work better with ORGCRIT. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you mention that I was cleaning up after dinner and was thinking the same thing. It would be really helpful for AfDs. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nom. I think that the following NCORP Assessment Table might clarify some of the ambiguity with respect to the sources, which include another source I was able to find online:

NCORP table

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Redding Record Searchlight (1)	This seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG that is doing its own reporting	This is a WP:NEWSORG	– Per WP:ORGDEPTH, of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops is considered trivial coverage. The coverage here doesn't seem to be solely about the opening of the store, but the remaining coverage is borderline.	This is not a mere interview or listing of primary sources	—
Redding Record Searchlight (2)	This seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG that is doing its own reporting	This is a WP:NEWSORG	Sundial Collective is mentioned once, in passing	The mention of Sundial Collective is too brief to evaluate whether there is secondary coverage of it in this article.
Redding Record Searchlight (3)	Per WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is a raw video of an interview with the article subject's then-owner.	Why not?	– I agree with Dr.Vulpes's concern raised in the GNG assessment table above	Raw video of an interview with the subject's owner is not a secondary source.
KRCR (1)	Seems to be reported independently	This is a local WP:NEWSORG	Per WP:ORGDEPTH, of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops is considered trivial coverage. This piece is wholly about the opening of a local cannabis store.	why not?
KRCR (2)	– KRCR itself is an independent newsorg, but per WP:ORGIND, we also need independent content, which means that it includes independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I really don't see much of any of that here, with the vast majority being quotes or statements attributed to the owner or purchaser.	Local WP:NEWSORG.	Per WP:CORPDEPTH, standard notices or routine coverage of the of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business is considered to be trivial coverage. This is a standard and routine report about the acquisition of a local business.	– The vast majority of this is direct quotes or statements attributed to people. There might be some sort of the author's own analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, but the extent appears to be rather limited.

On top of the above, even if these sources were enough to contribute towards notability, we're still dealing with a substantial WP:AUD problem inasmuch as these are both subregional (i.e. local) publications. I truly can't find any coverage of this entity even in broader regional media, which is the death knell for the article subject's notability in my view. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT per the source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boundless (production company)

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

Non-notable and fails WP:NCORP. Repeatedly created after deletions and redirects, see log. Sources are either routine releases or trivial mentions discussing splits and mergers falling under standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage. WP:BEFORE found only routine news on merging, see 1. VickKiang (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources given don't meet the significant coverage aspect of WP:GNG. I suppose I could see a redirect to Naked (production company), but I'm not sold on that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already deleted once by PROD but contested so is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In fact, I do not think that Naked (production company) is notable either, so I will AfD it. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article describing a succession of divisional rebrands within Fremantle (company) and the productions which were for a time allocated to this particular operating unit. Industry coverage based on the associated announcements is not, I think, of sufficient significance to demonstrate notability. Looking at this across the board, there is some coverage of the unit restructurings at Fremantle (company) and list coverage of productions at List of Fremantle productions for this and other Fremantle subsidiaries, which I think is sufficient, though a redirect to one or other could be an option. AllyD (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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