Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 02	October 04 >

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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanini IT Solutions

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

The article is low on notability and not having any citations or references. The article's subject lacks notability and citations, at least as determined by WP:SECONDARY, WP:GNG and/or WP:NORG The South Star Hill (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:A7 BrigadierG (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was WP:BEFORE followed? A quick look in google books shows several sources with significant coverage, such as:

Afonso Fleury, Maria Tereza Leme Fleury (2011). Brazilian Multinationals: Competences for Internationalization. Cambridge University Press. p. 287. ISBN 9781139494434.
Ilidio Tamas Lopes (2012). "6.1.2 Stefanini IT Solutions". ECIE2012-7th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Academic Publishing International. p. 62. ISBN 9781908272874.

These were just the first two books in the list, but there are many more. I think it would be pretty easy to build an article that passes WP:NCORP with what is in google books alone, without even looking for independent sources in English and Brazilian langugage media (which would exist for a company like this).4meter4 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete -~~struck second !vote The content in the mentioned references do not have any encyclopedic information. The author of this article was already notified for speedy deletion in 2019. under section A7 . I did a Gsearch and did not find any secondary sources as a support for this article. The South Star Hill (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The South Star Hill Speedy delete is no longer an option under deletion policy. Once any editor votes keep in an AFD, it is no longer eligible to be speedy deleted. Further, as the nominator you can not vote again. Double voting is strictly prohibited. 4meter4 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 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!} 20:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references listed above by 4meter4 meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 + google scholar also shows some sources w/ SIGCOV. 94rain ^Talk 06:58, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srutimala Duara

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

A longstanding WP:SPA article with uncited information. The provided mentions and searches find no evidence of attained biographical notability. The website mentioned in the profile does not work. The South Star Hill (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The South Star Hill (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Assam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Her novel Travelling with Dreams is reviewed in Das, Debarati (March 2019). "Depiction of Insurgency in Duara's Travelling with Dreams". Writers Editors Critics. 9 (1): 80-84. and her book Mindprints of Guwahati is the subject of this literary analysis journal article: "Past Verses Present; Metamorphosis in Different Spheres of Guwahati: A Study of Srutimala Duara's Mindprints of Guwahati". SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH. 8 (2): 13. doi:10.24113/ijellh.v8i2.10421. There are likely more reviews not in English, but Assamese. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews noted above. And I learned that Assamese is a language I'd not known about before. Double whammy.Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 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!} 19:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR - for Travelling with Dreams, there is also UNREST OF DESIRES: FACETS OF REALITY IN SRUTIMALA DUARA'S TRAVELLING WITH DREAMS in INTERFACE A NATIONAL RESEARCH ANTHOLOGY ON INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE, LITERATURE & CULTURE (2021). I have also added sources to the article from the WP Library and GBooks about her career, writing, and an award. Beccaynr (talk) 21:40, 15 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!} 19:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Edmonds

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

No significant coverage located on a search. Both sources linked are stats only, and look amateur on top of that. With the deprecation of WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG must be met, and this subject fails. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete. Not only does the article not cite any references, it is written as though it is making a claim of non-notability ("only featured twice more" and "dropped into playing non-league football"), and the external links are to stats pages which confirm that he didn't play very much (five appearances over his entire career), as the text suggests. Waste of everyone's time to review. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it does have references (just not in-line) and is certainly not eligible for speedy deletion. Giant Snowman 16:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, have fixed my !vote. Which is still "delete". Cielquiparle (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:40, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KSR Bengaluru Mail

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

I cannot find even a single secondary source covering this train. Clear GNG fail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search yielded several primary sources such as train schedules verifying it exists, but I could not find any secondary independent references. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 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!} 19:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theater Ida

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

No evidence of notability; neither of the cited sources directly relate to or mention the subject and WP:BEFORE didn't turn up sufficient sourcing either. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Germany. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The university research project linked in the source does mention the theatre and its involvement in the research project in passing, but it provides very little actual content on Theater Ida to consider it "significant coverage". I could find no reviews of any performances at the theatre, although they may exist in German language publications that did not come up in an English langugage search engine. I did find some advertisements for performances, but that doesn't count towards RS for notability purposes. I found nothing on the theatre itself.4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MILL and WP:PROMO. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches on a variety of terms including Theater Ida/IDA and the names of the founders, Julia Weber and Daniela Landert, found very little outside brief biographies of Prof. Landert on connected sites and occasional uploaded pieces from performances there. A Basislager Zürich site includes a report on a Round Table meeting which used the Theater IDA premises, but that does not demonstrate notability. Fails WP:NORG; nor do I think there is the coverage needed to merit an ATD involving merging material to Zürich#Opera,_ballet,_and_theaters and redirecting. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 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 redirect to Indrek Hargla. If a different redirect is preferred, please start a discussion on the redirect talk page or at WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melchior Wakenstede

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

Contested redirect. I don't think individual notability of this character is indicated; however, I have not performed an Estonian WP:BEFORE. Ovinus (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titular character of a bestselling book series (7 books so far), that has been translated into multiple languages (at least 5 translations) and adapted into films (trilogy of films, that premiered in 2022). That article is also the most suited to talk about the Melchior series in general as there is no reason to make articles about the individual books. Ivo (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, and Estonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Indrek Hargla per WP:FORK; or delete for failing WP:SIGCOV. This is an unnecessary content fork. I'm not seeing any reason to house this content separately from the article on Hargla at this point. We have zero content on the character itself in terms of literary or cultural analysis which means it fails GNG. Moving this content would highly benefit the article on Hargla by providing some context to his published works within the article on the author. If and when the article on Hargla developes further, and/or the content on the character becomes developed enough to warrant a fork we can always resplit the articles.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ivo. The subject is the main character in seven bestselling novels. Disagree with 4meter4. Both articles can be expanded. Simply because they were created as little more than stubs doesn't make either subject less notable. Should both be expanded in separate articles. ExRat (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ExRat Based on what evidence and what policy? Articles on characters actually require sources about those characters with critical analysis/ significant coverage of the character in question. This means sources that actually analyze the character across the books and films as the main subject, not just within an individual review of a book or film. Just because a series has sold well and inspired screen adaptations, doesn't necessarily mean that significant publications addressing the character in those films and books actually exist. No evidence has been provided that the topic meets WP:SIGCOV, and with zero in depth independent sources as required by GNG on this topic I don't see how you can be voting keep. WP:INHERITED and WP:ILIKEIT arguments aren't convincing.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Who is invoking WP:ILIKEIT? Perhaps the article could be redirected to Indrek Hargla for now. Each of the novels could have their own articles in the future though, and where would the redirect for the character be then? ExRat (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ExRat I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. Without evidence of sources supporting a character article we simply can't have an article per policy at any point and time. A redirect/merge to the author is a reasonable solution, which is why I suggested it. That said, I think the most natural solution to the editorial problem would be to emulate the organization along the lines of Harry Potter; where the article is on the series as a whole itself. That should not be split off into individual books and characters until the article on the series is well developed (lots of sources and lengthy). In that article you can work on writing on each book, the character, the various media adaptions, etc. all in one page. Once a particular section is developed enough, then it can split off into its own article per policy at WP:SPINOFF. We should not be having tons of stub articles with so little information that they are essentially duplicates of one another, or have so little content that they make navigating to multiple pages unwieldy for our readers (just keep it all together until it needs to be broken out). I would start by writing on the series in the author article itself, and when it becomes unwieldy; move it to a page on the series with a summary in the author article and a main article tag. Look at J. K. Rowling#Publishing Harry Potter for example. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melchior the Apothecary, which actually mentions the character's name. There's no coverage that would cause a GNG pass, and no information that's worth merging anywhere. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's the film though. The character is the subject of seven novels. Perhaps the article could be redirected to Indrek Hargla for now. ExRat (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Indrek Hargla or Melchior the Apothecary. Nothing in this article or the Estonian one indicates this meets WP:GNG criteria for a stand-alone article. No, being the main character of several bestselling (in Estonia only?) novels is not enough to warrant keeping this, not unless there is independent, reliable coverage of this fact. If we can locate media or better, scholarly, articles analyzing this character, allowing us to write a proper reception/significance section then GNG would be met. Ditto if we would find something about the importance of the series, then we could rewrite this into an article about a book series or franchise. But if nothing like this exits, this is just WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd just like to reiterate that if it should be redirected, it should be redirected to Indrek Hargla, not Melchior the Apothecary, which is a film version of one of the novels. It would make much more sense to redirect it to Hargla's article. Also, it doesn't matter if a bestselling novel was bestselling in Estonia or Guinea-Bissau, if it is properly referenced, has significant coverage (in any language), and passes notability. English language Wikipedia doesn't place priority on articles or subjects by their language. ExRat (talk) 14:56, 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!} 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melchior the Apothecary as per others above. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just want to make it clear that I oppose a redirect to the TV series Melchior the Apothecary because it is not the best redirect target. The best target is to the author Indrek Hargla where the character can be discussed in relation to the multiple books, and adaptations of those books (including the television series) which all feature the character Melchior Wakenstede. A merge of the material in Melchior Wakenstede to Indrek Hargla would have the character mentioned in the author's page in detail. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 17 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Abruzzo

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

Not notable; sources are not independent reliable and with in depth coverage of the subject. I tried to search for additional information, but found nothing important Driodr (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 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!} 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I completely do agree with you nominator. Yüsiacı (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC) (sock strike. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Promotional profile created by an SPA. Mccapra (talk) 02:49, 17 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Abney

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

~~Not notable; sources are not independent reliable and with in depth coverage of the subject. No care of BLP guidelines in the article Driodr (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)~~UPE spammer strike. MER-C 19:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Mississippi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 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!} 19:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This link that I found is reliable and in-depht [1]. There is more sources [2], [3]. Meets General notability guideline. Yüsiacı (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:42, 17 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Abbott

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

Not notable; sources are not independent reliable and with in depth coverage of the subject. Driodr (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, Television, Education, and Massachusetts. Skynxnex (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although Abbott isn't who would typically be measured by NACADEMIC, his American Academy of Arts and Sciences membership would qualify him under those measures. matt91486 (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per criteria three of NACADEMIC: "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is a prestigious scholarly association. However, he's not exactly an academic but I think those rules should still apply. Nevertheless, he had some independent coverage from The Boston Globe and Deadline Hollywood. CatchedY (talk) 15:08, 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!} 19:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 20:26, 17 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 and no indication any further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of non-sovereign nations

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

~~original research, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-sovereign countries. Privybst (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Privybst (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reason as the prior AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a disambiguation type list, pointing to other topics, nothing wrong with that. Oaktree b (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Are there relible sources that 'autonomist and secessionist movements' and 'unrecognized states' called 'non-sovereign nations'? Privybst (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful list for navigation. Regarding definitions, see Alagappa's "Definition of Nation, State and Nation-State" in "The Future of East Asia(2017). I agree that it is not really a disambiguation page. It is as stated a list-of-lists page. See the essay Wikipedia:Lists of lists. ~~----

~~I do not see there the definition of non-sovereign nation. Privybst (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it illustrates the difficulty in that definition process. --Bejnar (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~courtesy pings to @Chipmunkdavis, Titus Gold, Kahastok, Peterkingiron, and Sirfurboy: Privybst (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this is a WP:LISTOFLISTS, then per that essay it needs to follow WP:SAL, our guideline on standalone lists. Which means it needs selection criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. I don't think we have that here, and per the logic of the previous AFD I find it difficult to see how it is possible to create one that isn't OR (and no, the woolly definition in Bejnar's source does not help). If it is a WP:DAB, then per WP:D2D, Lists of non-sovereign nations is not reasonably a word or phrase on which a reader might search. Kahastok talk 18:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 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!} 19:15, 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!} 19:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Helmes

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

Unsourced article for 12 years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE searches show nothing of note. Skipple ☎ 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and Australia. Skipple ☎ 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. He's written a lot of articles, but I was unable to find any coverage of Helmes. W 42 17:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of "about the author" hits for the various publications he uses, social media links, nothing about him. Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, lacking indepth coverage of him as the subject. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 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!} 19:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Idress Palh

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

No claim to notability, and it does not look as if it has ever been sourced. For a while, there was a source in the form of a book published by "Books, LLC"; that's a company that prints Wikipedia articles. The title of the book is Chief Ministers of Sindh; Muhammad Ayub Khuhro, Allah Bux Soomro, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, Pir Ilahi Bux, Haji Idress Palh, Mumtaz Bhutto but the article has never claimed that Palh was Chief Minister of Sindh – and he wasn't. Being a union council member is not a claim to notability.

The article was first created as a copy of Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, and then it was redirected to that title; after a year, the redirect was replaced with the current text. bonadea contributions talk 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. bonadea contributions talk 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable local figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 18:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable and can't find any sources. Contributor008 (talk) 17:28, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Wheel (radio show)

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

Fails WP:GNG, radio show does not appear notable from article and WP:BEFORE search didn't return anything of note. Skipple ☎ 17:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia. Skipple ☎ 17:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 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 redirect to List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geua Tom

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

While the subject has played at the international level, and thus would meet WP:CRIN, the subject does not pass WP:GNG as no significant coverage of her exists. Per WP:NSPORTS2022 "sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject". This may also be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the first international game was played less than 2 weeks ago. W 42 16:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Cricket. W 42 16:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~List of United Arab Emirates women Twenty20 International cricketers~~ List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers. Fails WP:NSPORT both WP:NCRIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. With no significant coverage, and all the sources being statistics or passing mentions in routine sports reports/announcements, inclusion here is best done in an appropriate list. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably Wjemather means redirect to List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers? I'd go along with that redirect certainly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, of course. Copy-paste error while redirecting a batch of other similar stubs to avoid more AFDs! _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers (as appears to have been done with others). I keep asking people not to create these anymore despite in this case having played in a major qualifier event unless they can find additional coverage. Thanks also for adding the nolink parameters on the list page. Bs1jac (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree with the comment that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. There are still a couple of users at least who create players (either as stubs or redirects) as soon as an individual features in certain tournaments, when really playing in said tournament should only be the first step towards a page being potentially viable. Bs1jac (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page should stay as the player has played in 2022 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Qualifier tournament. As per Wiki Project Cricket Notability, the player's page can be created. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to WP:NCRIC, WP:CRIC notability point 2 and WP:OFFCRIC (international cricket point 3), a person from an associate nation playing in the women's T20 WC Qualifier passes minimum cricketing criteria, but they must also meet WP:GNG. Bs1jac (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers Fails WP:NCRIC as T20I matches weren't in notable competitions for notability, but more importantly fails WP:GNG. Redirect here is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the T20I matches in question are notable enough according to WP:CRIN which expands on WP:NCRIC, and WP:OFFCRIC; but that changes nothing as the player must still meet WP:GNG. Bs1jac (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that since the changes to NSPORT following the WP:NSPORT2022 RFC (particularly the removal of participation based criteria), it's clear that (as it stands) CRIN does not have community support, so cannot be used to determine notability in any way. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I thought that the big update to NCRIC had sorted all of that. Regardless, Associate nation players need to pass GNG going forward anyway. Bs1jac (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers in line with WP:ATD. BoJó | talk UTC 13:51, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Akhavan

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

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. Possible spam/promo Dark Juliorik (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 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!} 19:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page with no real claim of notability Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Citation needed. Article was written unsources completely. As nominator mentioned fails WP:ANYBIO. Yüsiacı (talk) 01:07, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

California Film Awards

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

Article about a regional film award, referenced entirely to primary sourcing that is not support for notability. The notability test for film awards hinges not on using their own self-published websites about themselves to verify that they exist, but rather on using WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them to verify that they attract independent attention from the media. But six of the eight footnotes here are its own website, one more is a video of the ceremony unfolding on YouTube, and one is a deadlink from the blog of a non-notable organization with a direct affiliation, absolutely none of which represent GNG-worthy coverage about the awards in third-party sources. (Also, this was created by Neelix, though you'd most likely have to be an oldtimer to understand why I'm mentioning that.) Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and California. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was improved by removing defunct links, youtube links and by adding outside references. The festival has gained enough attention/coverage of local and international media (including India, Australia, Azerbaijan, Ireland and Indonesia) to prove that it is a notable event, and its awards are mentioned as notable film awards in their articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.107.131 (talk) 06:43, 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!} 19:09, 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!} 20:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEVENT, and WP:ORG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Even after weeding of materials, what is left are non-independent primary sources or press releases or interviews, or passing mentions of which do not address the subject directly and detail. Additionally it is not clear that the awards have been held in the last four years. Appears like it may now be defunct.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Patterson

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this article does not seem to meet either the GNG or WP:NPROF criteria.

Since "Tim Patterson" is a fairly common name, I did a WP:BEFORE search in the Canadian Newsstream database using his name plus the word "Carleton", which is the name of his university. I could find significant coverage of Patterson in only one independent, secondary, reliable source (see Talk page).

I also have WP:COI concerns about this article. The three top editors of the article have almost never edited any article except this one and Harvey, New Brunswick (population: 358) which according to a declared COI editor is where Patterson grew up.[4]

Procedural/transparency note: This article has recently been briefly discussed at WP:WikiProject Climate change. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Environment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His Google Scholar profile shows heavy-enough citations for an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. Founding editor of Palaeontologia Electronica also looks like a pass of #C8. Nomination does not appear to have considered the correct notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is not about publicity (or as you may prefer to euphemize it, "significant coverage"), but rather about scholarly accomplishments, and is independent of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe the fact that I linked to WP:PROF in my nomination statement is a sign that I actually had considered WP:PROF? Maybe "significant coverage" is a term from a Wikipedia guideline and not my euphemism? Can you talk about the article and the subject without attacking the nominator, please?

W.r.t. WP:PROF#C1, the guideline doesn't give a bar for what constitutes heavy-enough citations, so I'm curious how we decide what is heavy enough. W.r.t. #C8, the journal needs to be well-established, which was not the case when Patterson served as executive editor. Perhaps my interpretation of #C8 is different from yours. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" is a term from GNG. Your usage of it, in your nomination statement, suggests that you have not understood or not taken seriously the statement in PROF that it "is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline" and that articles meeting PROF are not required to pass GNG. Your nomination makes a WP:VAGUEWAVE to PROF but does not actually address itself to any criterion of PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Climate science is one of the more highly-cited disciplines, and I consider 5745 to be in the grey area of meeting C1. As most of the articles were published before the big boom in climate science, I'd lean to thinking they do meet C1. However, I checked 8 professors at my old university and my current one in this field, and none of them have under 10,000 cites. I'm always a bit uncertain where the C1 threshold is, so curious to hear your thoughts @David Eppstein. Femke (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to look at paleoclimatology or paleolimnology rather than climate science as a whole; citation patterns in specialties like that that are more of scholarly interest are likely to vary significantly from citation patterns in the study of present-day climate change, which is for obvious reasons drawing a much larger amount of attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with David, and Tim Patterson's metrics seem to be very high for paleontology-adjacent fields. They're above the indices of paleontologists I know the names of (but consider that the people I'm thinking of are closer to systematics than earth science).

There's also some evidence of what appears to be promotional editing of the article which needs clearing up. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes WP:PROF#C1 per David Eppstein, some evidence of #C8 and prior discussions here based on number of citations, number of papers (9) with >100 citations and an h-index of 43. The article needs some work to remove the publications list (looks like a CV and not an article). --hroest 13:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nine articles with >100 citations (one with >350) meets my understanding of WP:PROF. The founding editor of Palaeontologia Electronica also goes towards meeting that guideline. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:53, 6 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emrooz TV

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

No notability of the topic. Only has one reference that happens to be a dead link. Failed to find enough information on the internet to possibly make this article notable enough. WR 15:08, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 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 14:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Colombia)

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

Another very badly written and completely inaccurate article created by an editor who keeps pumping out a series of terrible articles, with little or no regard for providing attribution for their copy-and-paste or translation work, and honestly, WP:CIR should be considered here, considering the numerous warnings they have received on their talk page about their poor editing. There is no such thing as "the Leader of the Opposition" in Colombia. María Fernanda Cabal is not the Leader of the Opposition, either officially or unofficially – the first reference simply states that she is opposed to the policies of the current government. She is not even the leader of the largest political party in opposition, so I don't know how she can be the leader of the opposition without being the leader of the party. As noted at the top of the article, the editor has simply copied and pasted text from the similar article for Israel, and hasn't even bothered to change the names of the Israeli political parties, so little do they care about proofreading their work. The other two references simply discuss opposition to the government in general, nothing to do with any official position. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if there's a potential for an article (and that's in doubt), this started out so bad that it's a case of WP:TNT. Pichpich (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the editor creates false or inaccurate statements. -Chien (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:45, 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. WP:TNT applies. ✗plicit 14:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Abucha

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

Fails GNG and NPOL. Ministerial position is an appointment and no election was involved. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TNT: A cabinet minister is an WP:NPOL-conferring position, so he is notable. However, the article is better off being WP:TNTed and started again, as it is of practically irreparably poor quality. Curbon7 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can handle writing up the new version, as I have experience writing about South Sudanese government ministers. Curbon7 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be wonderful. I created a barebones stub at Talk:Martin Abucha/Temp which is meant to be used in place of the copyvio. It could stand a good dose of expansion and improvement. Whpq (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ the subject is notable and the statements in the article are clearly verifiable. Deletion is not cleanup. I will tidy it up now but there’s no need at all for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Mining minister is a position in the national government's cabinet. WP:NPOL is clearly met. There is no requirement for the position to be elected, and I would be surprised if any cabinet level position in any government in the world was an elected one. I disagree with the sentiment expressed above that TNT applies. It is not a well-written article but it is not in such an irredeemable shape that requires deletion to resolve. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - After further investigation, there is significant copyright violations from the initial version. A fresh article from scratch without foundational copyright issues would be better. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  sounds better Okello Justine (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. There isn't really anything worth salvaging here since it's all copyvios. Subject might be notable though. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’ve struck my !vote in the light of potential copyright issues. A clean start may be best after all. Mccapra (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
isn't there a way i can rework on that martin abacha article again? i wanted to correct the mistakes but i cant even tap on the article Okello Justine (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Answered on editor's talk page. Whpq (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now: She is notable as she is a minister in Cabinet of South Sudan but there are copyright violations in the article so it have to be deleted. Contributor008 (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TNT, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and source a new version properly. Even politicians who pass WP:NPOL aren't exempt from still having to follow all of Wikipedia's other content policies, such as our copyright rules. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 6 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 delete per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Ovinus (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J&K Weather

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

Significant coverage in reliable sources not found (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Pakistan, and India. (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G11. 0xDeadbeef $\to \infty$ 14:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 and possibly A7. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congratulations! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not relevent per WP:WEBSITE Derion167 (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertisement for themselves, I've just CSD tagged another of their articles, an autobiography at Danish Hussain Shah Josey Wales^Parley 17:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forecast: WP:SNOW. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 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 trainwreck. Procedural keep per here; nominated title was already a redirect due to draftification. (non-admin closure) ~Styyx^Talk? 14:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Šaltibarščiai

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

Already featured in the Borscht article with as much detail as this Lithuanian version of the widely-made dish deserves in its own right, this unsourced content fork packed with OR has been the subject of some edit-warring, with an editor consistently removing the redirect to Borscht and insisting on a standalone article for this non-notable variation. Inasmuch as a soup would ever pass WP:GNG, this soup simply doesn't make the grade. If there were a WP:SOUP guideline, it wouldn't meet that either. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lithuania. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the section in the Borscht article, not enough uniqueness to warrant a separate article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:43, 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. ✗plicit 14:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Payyur Subramanya Swami Temple

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

No indication of notability. Sources are just list-entries. Moved back to mainspace by author without improvement. MB 14:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. MB 14:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify for improvements. The article as it is now doesn't pass GNG. Haueirlan (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As written, does not pass general notability. Reads like a travel guidebook page, but Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Moved to draft space twice, by User:Mccapra and User:MB, but immediately moved back to article space by originator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; moved out of process without improvement; does not pass GNG and fails 'what Wikipedia is not', also.Eagleash (talk) 17:46, 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 14:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subhashis Kar

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

Fails WP:BLP, WP:GNG and reliable sources Dark Juliorik (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are just packaged promotional material which originate from the subject. A Google search fails to find any better sources, so it fails GNG.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for promotion. Haueirlan (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is CEO of a non notable company so we can't say him notable. Contributor008 (talk) 18:08, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 19:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Hwa-sup

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

South Korean theatrician and scholar. Draftified, moved back into mainspace. Offers absolutely no notability, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and South Korea. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for further improvements. Haueirlan (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been attempts to draftify this article - the author has been slinging it straight back into mainspace, unimproved. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: Requesting extended-confirmed page protection to prevent it from being recreated might resolve that. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 17 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!} 09:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justlife

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft-deleted, but later restored. Renominating to get a proper consensus - my view is that the company still fails WP:NCORP.

Note: the page was deleted under a different title but not sure if G4 still applies. KH-1 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see the former "Justmop" article which was deleted in 2020, but the comments which led to the delete decision on that instance seem equally applicable to the present article on the renamed company, as does the rationale on the July 2022 AfD of this restored article which was created under the present name on a new editing account's 12th edit. (It may be worth noting that "Draft:Justmop (Company) and Justmop.com were also deleted in the past.) The present article describes the funding and location announcements of a company going about its business, but nothing here or found in searches, including their appearance in a Fast 50 sectoral list, indicates attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:ADMASQ. FalconK (talk) 23:21, 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 redirect to 2022 Racquetball World Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Racquetball World Championships – Mixed doubles

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

Not notable sports event within a larger competition, a search brought up nothing more than statistical tables, meaning that this fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS. Suggest a redirect to 2022 Racquetball World Championships. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Mexico. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the what? I'm astonished by this suggestion. The Mixed Doubles category was added this year to the Racquetball World Championships as a parallel for other sports that have mixed doubles, such tennis and badminton. The players in the competition are elite level players, so they are notable athletes. As such, I'm entirely baffled by the suggestion of these article being deleted. Trb333 (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Racquetball World Championships. It is a notable event, but not notable enough to warrant an article by itself. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 18:04, 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!} 09:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Racquetball World Championships. Not notable enough to need a separate article on every event at that championships, the content is already sufficiently covered at the parent article. As for anything relating to other sports being used as a parallel, that's just WP:OSE, which isn't a good argument to use in AFDs. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what about the rest of the events? Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is also my question, and concern. In fact, I'm so concerned about it that I didn't want to raise it lest people think that the other event pages for the championships be deemed to be apt for deletion. If the mixed doubles event gets deleted, then I'll put that info on the "parent" page (2022 Racquetball World Championships) but doing so for all individual events would clutter that page - in my opinion - and that's why I made sub-pages for the individual events. The team events I left on the parent page. I understand that "other articles are like this" isn't always a good argument, but if this is a notable event, then why aren't all the parts of it notable? Again, I'm a little baffled here. Trb333 (talk) 22:11, 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!} 09:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Kanoi

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

No significant references or notability. The external links are all dead including the website mentioned in the personal details. The South Star Hill (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The South Star Hill: You initiated this AfD but have now removed the AfD notice from the article; are you intending to withdraw the nomination? AllyD (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AllyD Thank you for notifying. I have added the AfD tag. The South Star Hill (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article with uncited information about the subject's childhood indicating personal knowledge. The career detail is personal website standard, listing (with superlatives) various people who have appeared in shows in which the subject also performed, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The provided references are passing mentions and searches find no evidence of attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles about tractors and agriculture for some reason, nothing about this fellow come up when you do a Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may be a good performer but not notable yet. Haueirlan (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, can't find anything about this man and he is the founder of non notable organization, Studio Vikas which hears like a Photographic studio not a company. I think he is a choreographer and producer of a Photographic studio. Contributor008 (talk) 18:14, 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. I have withdrawn my nomination, two editors have voted keep and found sources to demonstrate borderline notability. VickKiang (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Climax

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

Previously deleted. Except for The Anime Encyclopedia, which is a RS that is SIGCOV, this fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, WP:BEFORE reveals no more refs counting to notability. Russian version is no better, only having iffy press releases, including this. VickKiang (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Couldn't find any reviews in a search. Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 11:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Keep Changing vote based on discussion below. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could an admin please provide us with the reviews in the version of the article deleted on May 30, 2021. According to the prod reasoning, the article had a review from Okazu (though it noted the review was brief) and Mania, the latter of which is a reliable source for staff-written articles (WP:ANIME/RS). Link20XX (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, I found them myself [5], [6]. Both, especially the first of the two, seem to be significant coverage. When combined with the The Anime Encyclopedia source, it seems to meet WP:GNG. Link20XX (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX: I concur that these reviews are SIGCOV. However, I'm uncertain if these are RS. The Mania one has inconclusive reliability on WP:VG/RS, and I couldn't find discussions about the reliability of Okazu, though it's marked as a blog, but I'm also unfamiliar with the latter. If these two are indeed RS based on discussions I didn't find, please ping me. Many thanks for your time! VickKiang (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Mania has had a consensus at WP:ANIME/RS for reliability for quite awhile as its editor-in-chief, Chris Beveridge, has been interviewed by Anime News Network [7] and Right Stuf [8]; he was also a guest of honor at Anime Boston [9]. As for the other source, while it is a blog, it is written by Erica Friedman, whom is considered to be a reliable individual per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Erika Friedman RS for yuri related anime & manga. Link20XX (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply! Though, I've seen WP:ANIME/RS and it's been situational since 2009, almost when the ANIMERS page was created. Hmmm... am I missing something? VickKiang (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mania's reliability has been brought up a few times at RS/N (1, 2, 3, 4, and each time it has come to the conclusion that the website is reliable or been used as a reliable source to compare to another source. The situational listing is because it has a fan-submission section called Maniacs, which is run by uncredited individuals with little editorial control. The rest of the website, however, was run by paid staff and has been established to be reliable. As for the listing on WP:VGRS#Inconclusive discussions, I notice that section also lists Behind the Voice Actors, despite a recent RfC considering that source to be reliable (see WP:RSP), so perhaps that section is out of date. Link20XX (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Upon a further look, the actual Okazu review excluding the footnotes is 150 words, borderline meeting SIGCOV. I think this is borderline notable now and am neutral about deletion, Donaldd23, do you think the new refs show borderline notability? If you concur with Link20XX I might withdraw the AfD. VickKiang (talk) 00:18, 7 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 Jerusalem Municipality. This closure is moot after an editor already brought over content from this article to Jerusalem Municipality during the AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem of Jerusalem

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

There are little to no sources standing up either the basic subject here or the specific phraseology of "emblem of Jerusalem", which appears in a range of scholarly sources to describe other things, but not this winning graphic from a design competition. Of the two sources provided, one is dead and one has no page number or extract. Notability is not clearly established for this graphic as a subject in its own right. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Flag of Jerusalem. I don't think this deserves a standalone article as per WP:NOTINHERITED. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 08:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldMiner24: NB: The emblem seems to have preceded the flag as a design (no confirming sources on the flag article either). The main problem here is that we simply have no sources with which to establish encyclopedic notability or clarify basic details about either putative subject in question. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If merging into the flag doesn't make sense, I do believe that the emblem on its own fails WP:GNG. Deleting also makes sense to me. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 17:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the flag of Jersualem seems like a good alternative to me too. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Problem is, there doesn't seem to be any page for the flag of Jerusalem. Also if you look at the Wiki Page for Jerusalem, there is no emblem or flag displayed as there usually are for most others. PearBullet (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Keep~~ Merge to Jerusalem Municipality. I have fixed the dead link with an archive link and supplied another link from Eliyahu Koren page but the problem is neither of these links speak about any design competition, they simply say that the "seal" (is this something else altogether?) was designed by him. Therefore both sentences about the design contest and presentation by him are effectively unsourced (unless it says something in the People of the Book source that I have no access to).17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: I have obtained the People of the Book + translation https://yaronimus.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/israel_biliophiles_no6.pdf Hard to read will comment later.Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT OK, I have written up what that source says on the article talk page, it doesn't match the article text but taken together with the other two sources, it seems reasonable to suppose that the municipality symbol is Koren's (having won a competition arranged by himself :) so I change my vote to keep.Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT Sigh. Reflecting again, I don't think this is really worth an article, so change !vote once more to Merge. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flag_of_Jerusalem#Flag_of_Jerusalem

Keep. Very similar to the emblem entry. Impulsive people, who lack any stress and live in a world where only education, or indoctrination, matters -- rather than reality or state of public opinion in countries that read English Wikipedia -- think they can change reality by re-writing history and deleting pages. Won't help IMO. Truth usually wins.Archway (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this response. First, this is the emblem entry. Second, are only editors who are stressed, uneducated, not impulsive and not indoctrinated able to !vote?? Third, what has reality to do with this? I agree that WP:TRUTH matters. As does notability. Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, and that doesnt mean it cant be covered elsewhere, but doesnt need an article. nableezy - 16:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exists in like fourteen different Wikipedias. Hanging all over the city of Jerusalem. Lots of sources in Hebrew available. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the best sources you have for this in Hebrew? There are just three weak sources in the Hebrew Wikipedia version. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just a note to those advocating a Merge to Flag of Jerusalem, that article is also up for AFD discussion so is not a promising Merge target if it gets deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regular city emblem with plenty of sources. No case for deletion was made. gidonb (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Where are you counting this "plenty of sources"? What's the best example of a source with non-trivial coverage? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are listed on Hewiki. This article should never have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on some other wiki are no use, bring here + translation the sources you wish to be considered. When this was nominated there were literally no source and no-one looking for any till I looked myself, so the nomination was fine. There is still a notability problem. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not how nominations should work. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing significant about it. Fails both WP:N and WP:GNG. Haueirlan (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nableezy. starship .paint (exalt) 02:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Haaretz has coverage as does this 28 page booklet by historians Olive branches, stones and a rampant lion : the design process of Jerusalem's municipal emblem.. PrisonerB (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lo and Behold, Visual Aspects of Zionist Myths in Israeli Culture, a book by Dr. Alec Mishory, also has a chapter, pages 223 to 239. PrisonerB (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is just an exhibition catalogue. The first one directly contradicts the three sources we have in the article that give credit to Eliyahu Koren and instead gives credit to a group of which he was a member and in particular to another member of that group. So which source is right, the People of the Book (+2 books) or Haaretz? I don't think this confusion really helps the keep case tbh. I have no access to the third one and it's in Hebrew, what does it say? Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Olive branches, stones and a rampant lion : the design process of Jerusalem's municipal emblem. is a 20 page catalog of an exhibit, curated by historians, dedicated to the symbol. The Lo and Behold, Visual Aspects of Zionist Myths in Israeli Culture book has a whole chapter on the symbol. That there is a possible disagreement over authorship between members of the submitting group is not a factor detracting from the significance of the symbol. These are three significant sources. PrisonerB (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a dispute over authorship how do we know which source is significant? If you replace three current sources with three new ones we are no further ahead, we just give credit to someone else. And these new sources also need to be properly cited in the article with any necessary translations. Anyone looking at the title of the third source might easily conclude the emblem is a "Zionist Myth in Israeli Culture"?? Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to either of those sources and do they say who designed it? So far the story seems to be Koren designed it in a competition that he set the rules for, and then when everyone else failed to follow those rules, his design won by default. Is that still the jist in the above? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A catchy title is not an indication of content. If you feel like translating the source, go ahead. The nomination was clearly flawed, as I located these sources by looking at other Wikipedia pages and some searching in less than two minutes. PrisonerB (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Haaretz piece speaks more to an article on Ali Gross - for the emblem itself it's a trivial mention and a confusing one. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Haaretz piece has several paragraphs on the symbol, leading off with it and covering it later too. Nothing confusing in it. PrisonerB (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mention the confusion over the designer: here possibly Koren, or a whole bunch of designers, or maybe Ali Gross. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz points out this was a group design, but says that Gross' private archives suggest she was the main designer. I don't see a confusion. PrisonerB (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a waste of time, no evidence provided. Providing a source that one has not read is not providing a source at all. And if one has read it then it should not be a problem to provide a translation or to properly cite it in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Book, author, page numbers, section, and chapter. Full citation in this discussion. If you can't bring yourself to check it out from the library, the this review of the book on page 137 verifies that it contains a chapter in section three on the symbol of Jerusalem. PrisonerB (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is AfD is already open for a while but all this while no case has been made for either deletion or for merge.

The case for deletion does not address the existence of sufficient sources for WP:GNG, and a lot more prose in the high-quality Hewiki. There is much more to write on this subject and there are sufficient WP:SIGCOV sources to back this up. The delete case is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTAVOTE and does not deal with the evidence.

The case for merging is also extremely weak. It is not evidence-based either. The suggestion of one such opinion is to merge the article into the flag of Jerusalem but the amount that can be written about the flag is finite as it is the emblem with two blue banners, taken from the flag. If something must be merged, it would make sense to do this the other way around: from the flag to the emblem. Thoese !votes too seem to be based in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. gidonb (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting another week, too many different options are still being considered to draw this to a close yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If one looks at the article for the Jerusalem Municipality the modern material (post creation of Israel) is completely unsourced and the article almost a deletion candidate itself as it stands. This "emblem" is something that could easily be mentioned there as a start on improving it. If the "parent" article is virtually not notable, then why should this subsidiary icon of it be notable? The supporters here are making no effort to improve the article, alleging that there are (contradictory) Hebrew sources that they are unable to quote and now accusing deleters of "Idontlikeit" because there are no good arguments for keeping it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure where this page's current title came from, as it is unsupported by the sources present - both of which call it "the seal of the city of Jerusalem" - a title incidentally closer to the Hebrew title. The phrase "emblem of Jerusalem" appears in scholarship, but usually as a metaphor for things. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not ask a question on the talk page? You AfD tons of articles, where ample sources exist, totally baseless nominations, and this takes away precious time that editors could have spent in the article space to tons of discussions where the outcome is known from the get-go. A huge waste for our community project! gidonb (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence free assertions. Why not spend time yourself in "in the article space" instead of criticizing other editors here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of anything you hold holy stop babbling and if you have sources provide them. Not make some bogus claim that they obviously must exist. nableezy - 13:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources were provided above. Nobody even has the beginning of an answer to them. This is a classic uninformed WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination (and support), which the nominator spouts at high speed. gidonb (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that in the opinion of others they are not sufficient to support a standalone article. Kindly stop commenting on any editor or their motivations as it is both a violation of WP:NPA and a non-sequitur in a deletion nomination. If you refuse to do so Ill be asking that you be made to do so, by either block or topic ban. nableezy - 14:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to make people shut up but it doesn't take the problem away! Nor does it remove the existence of sufficient sources by WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make that argument without the personal attacks. You are not free to make it with them. Im done responding here tho, toodles, nableezy - 14:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seems that deletion has been proposed to remove unpalatable facts rather than build an encyclopedia. W C M_email 14:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jerusalem Municipality. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sourcing provided here is all very thin, and the language doesn't necessarily match the title of this article with some sources using symbol of Jerusalem, seal of Jerusalem, flag, etc. Ultimately, there is not enough here to pass GNG. Further, there is no reason we can not include this same information in the article on the municipality, so the encyclopedia will not be losing this information by housing it in a different place. Note to closer. Please consider the strength of the arguments in your close, instead of going off a vote count. Many of the keep votes have used emotional arguments or even personal attacks or have made claims without evidence rather than making a policy evidence based argument. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A merge into Jerusalem Municipality would improve that page and be an ok home for this thinly sourced material (as an option). Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no sources which describes it as a graphic. The emblem with some prose can be manually moved and used to illustrate article Jerusalem Municipality per municipality official page, so no redirect should be left behind.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (NB:) For the sake of simplicity, I've copied the material over to Jerusalem Municipality. I agree with the above that a redirect would not be particularly beneficial given that none of the given sources seem to actually use "emblem of Jerusalem" (which has various other scholarly uses) to describe the seal. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might be needed for attribution history at this point, and dont think a redirect really matters either. nableezy - 16:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just a note to participants that the relevant content has already been merged to Jerusalem Municipality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Eliyahu Koren or Jerusalem Municipality as an section. Since this fails WP:N but citations seems to be verifiable it is better to merge into another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranesh Ravikumar (talk • contribs) 16:20, October 18, 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I'd like to Merge or Redirect this article but I don't see widespread support for these two options in this discussion. Some strong feelings about Keeping this article but not ones based in policy and the additional sources provided discuss the Emblem of Jerusalem, not the Flag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Jerusalem

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

This stub is unsourced for a reason, and that is because there is little to no attestation in reliable sources of the flag of the Jerusalem municipality (the image itself is captioned "Flag of the Israeli municipality of Jerusalem") being called 'the flag of Jerusalem' - this is a title that in vexillology more commonly refers to the flag of the Order of St John of Malta or, in some academic papers, a hypothetical future flag that might contain both Israeli and Palestine elements in a post-conflict reconciliation scenario. Since no material currently exists in the article on the latter, and the current material is unsupported, this page should either be deleted or redirected to Flag and coat of arms of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, Palestine, and Malta. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is indirectly related to the Emblem of Jerusalem, also up for deletion. ~~but possibly a keep~~. But the flag containing the emblem, although it is clearly based on the Israeli flag, appears not to be anything official afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. starship .paint (exalt) 02:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is an attempt, IMO, to re-write reality (and history), by an impulsive people who lack any stress and live in a world that only eduction, or indoctrination, matters, rather than reality on the ground or the actual state of public opinion (which is relatively pro-Israel in all English-speaking countries.) However, in reality, the trend is the opposite, and Israel relations with the Arab world is getting better, removing any hope of dividing the city. Archway (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, and that doesnt mean it cant be covered elsewhere, but doesnt need an article. nableezy - 16:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exists in like fourteen different Wikipedias. Hanging all over the city of Jerusalem. Lots of sources in Hebrew available. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Is that why no Hebrew version of the article exists then? What's your best Hebrew sources for this then? Show us. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting although I see no policy-based reasons for keeping this unsourced article. But one editor states that "lots of sources in Hebrew are available" so here's a few more days to track them down.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Emblem of Jerusalem. It's basically the emblem of Jerusalem with two blue banners from the Israeli flag (that took these from the talit). The topic is notable but, unless other flags for Jerusalem are found and discussed, the amount of possible prose about this flag is finite. We should follow the example of Hewiki and make the Jerusalem flag into a short section under the Emblem of Jerusalem! gidonb (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a fork of Emblem of Jerusalem with no significance for a standalone article. Haueirlan (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emblem of Jerusalem, an unnecessary content fork. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these Merge and Redirect suggestions is that Emblem of Jerusalem is the subject of an AFD discussion and editors there are suggesting merging to this article. I think a decision independent of the fate of Emblem of Jerusalem needs to be made in case it is deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Haaretz has coverage as does this 28 page booklet by historians Olive branches, stones and a rampant lion : the design process of Jerusalem's municipal emblem.. PrisonerB (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both about the emblem, not the flag (no mention is made of this), so it might support the emblem page, but not this. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lo and Behold, Visual Aspects of Zionist Myths in Israeli Culture, a book by Dr. Alec Mishory, also has a chapter, pages 223 to 239. PrisonerB (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Iskander just said, you are claiming this source for the emblem and now for the flag, which is it? And what does this source actually say? Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to check it out and read it. The chapter in pages 223 to 239 (chapter 9 in part 3) is dedicated to the Jerusalem symbol, and it is written by a doctor. PrisonerB (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can just ignore this source as no evidence has been provided that it says anything about the flag (or for the emblem for that matter). Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter nine, pages 223 to 239, is entirely on the symbol chosen in 1949. PrisonerB (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion nomination is about the flag not the emblem. Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 6 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 04:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharly Modak

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

Only a few roles in some daily soaps. After carefully checking the references, all are passing mentions and routine coverages only. The creator removed the tag[10] without any improvements to the article despite suggestions to go through the AfC process. Haueirlan (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meeting WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG as the Subject has done 3 television series and she was the lead actress of those television series, also the subject has significant coverages from multiple sources. Apart from this the subject has been reviewed 2 month ago by @North8000:, who is an experienced editor over more than 10 years so I don't think that in this 2 month subject is not meeting notablity criteria. Samir Bishal (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean reviewed pages cannot go through AfD? Anyway, lets see the references:

1st source[11] talks about the show with passing mention of its roles.
2nd source[12] is a routine coverage for a new source.
3rd source[13] again a routine coverage about a new soap opera rather than the subject.
4th source[14] is not opening for me.
5th source[15] is an interview piece.
6th source[16] another routine coverage on show's end.
7th source[17] is another interview piece featuring her photos.

8th source[18] about participating her along with a several other actress to a reality show.

Clearly fails SIGCOV and GNG. Acting merely in 3 local television shows doesn't establish notability as per WP:NACTOR and this is why I suggested you to go through the AfC process[19] instead of Adminshopping[20]. Haueirlan (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did adminshopping because there are rules if any subject is on wikipedia for more than 90 days then it can't go to the draft space, only an admin and editors who are experienced can send the subject to draft-space. By the experience editor doesn't mean how many years his/her account age is, experience editor mean who is editing regularly and working on this kind of issue. Admin Liz wrote the same thing on your talk page. Please read what admin Liz wrote on your talk page. As you are not an experienced editor you can only send it for speedy deletion and afd, but you send the subject direct to draft-space. And reviewed page can go through afd, which i already maintained you on your talk page that you can go through afd insted of draftify because the subject is more than 90 days old. By the way let other contributor to write about this afd and till then let's wait for their perspective also. Thank you Samir Bishal (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In no way you should do adminshopping. If you feel I or any other editor has done something wrong then you should ask or discuss with me or them first, on article's talk page or on their talk page. This is how this community works. Liz response has nothing to do with this AfD so if you really think the subject is notable then establish it with proper sources. Best, Haueirlan (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Actress does not pass WP:ACTOR. Sources do not completely support WP:BIO with only one (maybe two) passing WP:GNG. See table for analysis of sources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sharly has played 3 television serial and there she played the lead role and all those roles are significant and notable. As Chirodini Ami Je Tomar serial has more that 200 episodes, Bhaggolokkhi has more than 200 episodes and Lokkhi Kakima Superstar has more than 150 episode and Sharly has played lead role in those tv serial. Subject is passing WP:NACTOR clearly. Samir Bishal (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was pinged because I was the NPP reviewer. I made a judgement call in the limited time available. A review here would do a more thorough job than I did and I would respect any outcome. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Indian Express Bangla	Article appears to be an independent review of the show	WP:INDIANEXP	~ Article is about the show not the actress	~ Partial
Times of India	Short article about an upcoming production	For none entertainment news this source is biased towards India	Article is about the show not the actress	✘ No
Times of India	Short article about an upcoming production	For none entertainment news this source is biased towards India	~ Article is about the show but gives a couple paragraphs on the actresses	~ Partial
TV9 Bangla	? Appears to be a reproduction from a news agency	Willing to assume that this is a local TV station which is part of a larger organization	~ Article is about the show not the actress	? Unknown
Sangbad Online	? Unable to access website	? Unable to access website	? Unable to access website	? Unknown
Anandabazar	Interview appears to be independent of any production company influence	Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#Is_the_Anandabazar_Patrika_WP:RS	Transcript of an interview with material about their life and recent events. Not a strong source.	✔ Yes
Times of India	WP:TOI	For none entertainment news this source is biased towards India	Article is about the show	✘ No
Times of India	WP:TOI	For none entertainment news this source is biased towards India	Top ten list	✘ No
Times of India	WP:TOI	For none entertainment news this source is biased towards India	~ Actress appeared as a contestant on a TV show.	~ Partial
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}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on source table above. I don't find much of anything for other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the source table and my own searches have been unable to uncover anything better. W 42 17:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source table and above voters. Elbatli (talk) 10:02, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Park (Johor Bahru)

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

This page was restored from a redirect as "plainly notable" but unfortunately I do not see that reflected in either the article's sourcing or the available sources. Of the sources listed in the article, one is a blog, one is a tourist listing, and two are simple directory listings. The only one potentially usable is the Citizens Journal source. My own search has only turned up blog posts, directory listings, and mentions in listicle-style articles like "6 parks in Johor to get away from hustle and bustle of the city." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 04:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 04:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more sources since this discussion was started. This is a 31-acre park and the largest in a city of 1.7 million. The fact that it is harder to find sources in English is an example of the bias we have in covering all notable subjects. I added the "blogs" to give the context that this is not an obscure location and there should be a presumption of much more non-English coverage. MB 17:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect to the possibility of non-English sources, I'm not sure that the sources you've added do much for notability. Getting the obvious issue out of the way: Citizen journalism sites tend to have little editorial oversight. That's not a disqualifier in-and-of-itself, but the three CJ sources you added aren't about the park, they're about other events - The park itself is just named in a passing mention. I think the academic article does contribute to notability, but by my analysis its the only source in the article that does so. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 18:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Things that happen in the park demonstrate that it is a cultural center of the city which contributes to an expectation of notability. Notability can be made with as little as one very good source, or with a collection of sources taken in context. MB 19:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple secondary sources in any language for the article already, thus it fulfills the threshold for notability already as per WP:GNG Chongkian (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires more than just "secondary sources" - The coverage needs to be reliable and significant, and only one (arguably two) of the sources meet all the criteria. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 00:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist per WP:GEOLAND. And I have also:

- added another secondary sources from Nestle website, where it talks specifically about this park. Nestle is reliable website and the coverage of the park is significant

- added its history section

- added infobox & fill up all of the available information

- added external section

- added its area information & its citation

- added two other categories

- added another WikiProject categorization

- moved coordinate inside infobox Chongkian (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that many English-language sources do not translate the name of this park, so this search is relevant. There seem to be at least four publications found there with significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 1 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!} 06:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND and improvements made by Chongkian. Haueirlan (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For clarity, could the article state that "Taman" means "park" and "Merdeka" means "independence" in Malaysian Malay, if that is true? Malaysia has many languages. I also wonder if the article should be moved to "Taman Merdeka" as that may be the most common name used for it, even in English-language publications. --Doncram (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we can write the meaning of the park name in a 'Name' section of the article. If we were to rename this page, it should be at least be named to Merdeka Park (maintaining the name Merdeka), but use English word of park. Chongkian (talk) 00:57, 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelrahman ElGendy

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG--provided sources are either not independent or are passing mentions or non-mentions in articles about the group of political prisoners with whom he was detained. Article was created by a sockmaster who was focused on promotional articles on Egyptian human rights figures (master was blocked after the creation of this article, so this is not eligible for a G5 speedy). A search for better sources turned up articles written by him, but nothing from reliable sources about him. --Finngall ^talk 01:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:14, 19 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!} 03:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually one of this writer's readers (I added the most recent edits after I watched his latest interview and did not find it on the page here; I assume that's what triggered the deletion request), and after some research I did find significant, consistent coverage for his case in both English and Arabic outlets (I am highlighting that the "reliability" of news outlets is not synonymous with them being "western". The local coverage is indeed extensive on his case.)

His interviews and articles written by him are just his work; I am not sure why they would discredit his notability if they were also included within the wiki page.

Here is a list of independent local and international media outlets and organizations that I managed to find covering this writer exclusively, and not in passing mention with others:

Case profile on MENA Rights group: https://menarights.org/en/caseprofile/egyptian-minor-sentenced-adult-after-demonstrators-are-tried-en-masse

HuffPost: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-nightmare-egyptian-ab_b_11679360

Ryersonian: https://ryersonian.ca/my-friend-is-in-prison-and-im-helpless-post-egyptian-revolution/

Egyptian Prison Atlas: https://egyptprisonatlas.org/donation/abd-el-rahman-mohamed-mostafa-al-gendy/

Mada Masr: https://www.madamasr.com/ar/2019/12/30/feature/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%AB%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86-30-%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D8%A5%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B3%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%86/

Raseef22: https://raseef22.net/article/1076747-%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%84-%D8%B7%D9%81%D9%84%D8%A7-%D9%88%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D9%82%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AC-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%86

Cairo24: https://www.cairo24.com/498699

Al Arabi Al Jadeed: https://www.alaraby.co.uk/%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%AC%D9%86-%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8-%22%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9%22%C2%A0%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%A9-5-%D8%A3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%85%C2%A0%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%B3%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%87-6-%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA

Daarb: https://daaarb.com/%D9%82%D8%B6%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%85-%D8%A5%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B3%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%B3/

Nawafez:

https://nwafez.com/%D8%B3%D8%AC%D9%86-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%8A-5-%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AB-%D8%A7%D9%84/

Masr AlArabia:

https://masralarabia.net/%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7/433861-%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%AC%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%AE%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D9%88%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%A9-%D9%86%D8%B8%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9-%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%B4%D9%88%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%B3

Asia Times https://asiatimes.com/2019/12/arb-egypt-child-arrested-2013-aftermath-released/

Based on that, and taking into consideration his written, visual and audio interviews with both local and international entities in addition to widely-published work in both Arabic and English; I argue that the profile indeed passes the threshold for notability and reliability.

As for the page being created by a sockmaster, I argue that if they did breach the policies later after creating this page, it does not necessarily mean all pages created/edited by them are not legit.

Thank you for your efforts in maintaining the community.

Has a consensus been reached yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:901:CFD0:4D56:F442:F9C2:F5B1 (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If no one is contributing to the discussion or offering any alternatives, shouldn't the deletion tag be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:901:CFD0:D1D4:930:7041:935D (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the above sources:

HuffPost: Published on their (now-closed) Contributor platform, which is not subject to editorial oversight. Not reliable, not neutral, doesn't appear to be independent.
Ryersonian: Editorial, not neutral.
Egyptian Prison Atlas: compilation of basic data on the subject, not useful for establishing notability.
Mada Masr: Report on subject's release from site which he has been a contributor, not neutral.
Raseef22: Better than the above, but still more editorial comment than news report.
Cairo24: Report on his release, adds nothing further.
Al Araby: Routine report on his sentencing.
Daarb: Report on his release, completely redundant with Cairo24 reference.
Nwafez: Carbon copy of the Al Araby reference.
Masr AlArabia: He wrote a letter to a friend, most of the article is the contents of the letter. Not neutral or independent.
Asia Times: Yet another redundant report on his release.

There are many editors on here who are better at source analysis than I am, and I hope that one or more of them chimes in here, but in my view the sources above do not add up to a set of reliable, independent or in-depth references which satisfies WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 20:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite sure why "routine reports" on a case are not an evidence of notability, given that this is a country with tens of thousands of political prisoners on average at any given moment, are there "routine reports" on all of them? His case alone has 68 people, over 30 of which have been released on pardons as reported in several sources, are there "routine reports" on each of them? The fact that his case plus his writings are getting that media attention and exclusive coverage is a proof of notability per se, if not enough on its own, then at least as supplementary to him being actually published and written about and hosted on various platforms.

But, I still looked up more, and more has come up that looks very detailed, intentional, and independent.

His story, writings, and activism are widely referenced in reports and analyses around the political situation in Egypt. Some of them are wholly centred on his story and writings, and others use them as a main reference they draw upon in an argument or political analysis.

This is an op ed drawing on his story and prison writing in a political analysis on Egypt in 2019: https://www.alquds.co.uk/%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AB-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%B6%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9/

This is another article drawing on his activism and writings on current prisoners to shed light on the prison situation in Egypt in 2022: https://ghadnews.net/ar/post/2772

This is a detailed coverage of his release and backstory: https://www.fj-p.com/288784/%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%A5%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B3%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%AD%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A5%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B3%D8%A8/

This is an article in 2021 about a viral campaign he launched and managed for his incarcerated friend covering both their stories and the campaign by Abdelrahman: https://arabicpost.net/opinions/2021/04/13/%d8%a3%d8%ba%d9%86%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d8%b9%d9%87%d8%af-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d8%b5%d8%af%d9%82%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d9%87%d9%84-%d8%aa%d9%85%d9%86%d8%ad-%d8%a3%d9%8a%d9%85%d9%86-%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b3%d9%89-%d9%81/

This is a Spanish news report on one of the biggest Spanish media outlets on Egyptian prison writing relying heavily on his story, writing and statements in its content: https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-01-07/la-vida-entre-rejas-se-hace-literatura-en-egipto.html?prm=ep-app-cabecera It was big enough to be translated and published in Arabic on another reputable Arabic platform: https://www.noonpost.com/content/42885

This is the latest news report from AlJazeera on his latest creative writing scholarship and the book project he's currently working on: https://mubasher.aljazeera.net/news/2022/8/10/%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87-6-%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%82-%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%85%D9%87

I am not sure how a political prisoner, writer, and activist who's been widely and consistently covered in news and published on various platforms and hosted on different outlets between 2013 and 2022 does not pass the notability threshold. I of course would love to hear others' input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:901:CFD0:CAB:E406:9AD6:32EB (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2601:547:901:CFD0:CAB:E406:9AD6:32EB, please stop adding content to this deletion discussion. It's too much. No one is going to read through all of the content you have posted here and the volume makes it less likely editors will even venture to assess this article. Without more participation, this discussion will just be relisted until we have more opinions offered on what to do with this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the whole motive behind nominating the article for deletion was asking for more reliable resources? I was not aware of a limit on the number of found resources I could add to the discussion for reference. Anyways, I have already added my response to the concerns that the argument for deletion is based on; I won't be adding more. Thank you. 2601:547:901:CFD0:65EB:9BCB:DD8F:EB35 (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need some eyes on this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources given all appear minor mentions as discussed, "stuff happens to man" without really much else discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's creator was blocked for socking, every account that has contributed to the article was an SPA, and immediately upon RfD, an IP shows up to ass-blast the RfD with 1000 low quality sources? Let's call a WP:SPADE here and get this nonsense off of Wikipedia. BrigadierG (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per above. Haueirlan (talk) 15:04, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Anderson (singer)

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

Fails WP:GNG, as the subject of this article is a singer who hasn't released any albums and doesn't seem to have any album credits at all. A couple of television appearances don't meet the threshold for notability, especially since neither the subject of this article nor the television appearances received much coverage. Also relies too heavily on primary sources, as nearly all information comes from interviews with the subject if this article. Considering the dearth of secondary sources, it's almost impossible to write an article in which information isn't sourced almost exclusively from statements he has made about himself.JMB1980 (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of falling into any category listed in WP:MN Mr.weedle (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rather than a couple of tv appearances he actually starred in a 3 year tv series directly about him which qualifies for a WP:NMUSIC criteria 12 pass with reliable sources significant coverage already in the article such as the NZ Herald, Stuff, Radio New Zealand and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, it wasn't a TV series that ran for three years, it was a seven-episode series that ran in 2006 and then a follow-up seven episode series that aired two years later. Considering how little coverage these programs received, I don't think he can be considered the subject of a "substantial broadcast."JMB1980 (talk) 01:45, 22 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!} 03:12, 26 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!} 06:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only a few local news coverage. Fails WP:SINGER. Haueirlan (talk) 15:06, 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) 06:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Rinaldi

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

The subject was a successful youth player, but he didn't have success in a major international competition at the highest level. I was told at the talk page one Serie C appearance (he achieved just that, one appearance) was enough to meet GNG per WP:NFOOTY , but I couldn't confirm this. So I nominate it for deletion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources are databases and the others mention his early death with some info on his football career as a youth and the one appearance in the Serie C. I quote WP:NFOOTY that leads to WP:SPORTBASIC (also accounts for the bold part above) at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one appearance was enough to meet NFOOTBALL, but that is now defunct, so it is irrelevant. What matters is GNG - and I think there is enough coverage out there to show notability. Giant Snowman 15:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations @GiantSnowman. But can you explain to me what of the underlined in bold was achieved? As a sportsperson he doesn't appear to meet the requirements no highest level, no international competition, so where enters GNG? Just so I know how to argue in future discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrectly conflating 'playing at a professional level' with 'meeting GNG'. As I have said - the level of play is irrelevant. What matters is GNG i.e. significant coverage. Giant Snowman 18:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then they are notable for one event which is their death at an early age, what the headlines are all about.

But reading WP:ONEEVENT lets me see that they also do not meet this criteria. If one reads WP:NOTNEWS also makes me feel the article fails GNG. All to understand how to argue in future deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to follow to your rationale of GNG I found that one:Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Mr Rinaldi's football career wasn't notable; in recent times, even before WP:NFOOTBALL was deprecated, a subject with no football-related WP:SIGCOV and just eight minutes in Serie C would have very likely been deleted. His untimely death received immediate coverage, and some of that was website coverage at a national level because he was once on the books of a team people would have heard of, but that doesn't make him notable. No prejudice against re-creation, perhaps as Death of Andrea Rinaldi, if the event had a lasting effect: if his death were to become the catalyst for requiring particular medical checks on footballers at a lower level, for instance. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I want to deleted it per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. No-one has opposed those arguments yet, so I believe they are valid.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr Salvus 21:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he was a young player at a top team, hence his death received significant coverage worldwide. This coverage also came from good sources: Sky, BBC, goal.com, CNN, as well as pretty much every English newspaper - and these are just the English sources, there’s obviously significant coverage in Italy as well. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:10, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notey

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. YouVeNeverSeenBetter (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. YouVeNeverSeenBetter (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This company appears to have moved away from its 2015 business model described in the article, now operating chinafy.com and ultrasite.com as Notey Labs. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regarding the former 2015 Notey blog platform proposition described in the article, the provided references (a fundraising announcement and a fastest-growing listing) are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Regarding the subsequent Notey Labs proposition, I am seeing nothing better than listings and occasional annoucenemnt-based coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NWEB. Haueirlan (talk) 15:12, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I will say that I got a little twinge deleting an article that was created in 2002. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Manifesto

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

No independent coverage located on a search. Everything from the bibliography is by the same authors so is not independent. Hits on GScholar & other searching are the same. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to D (data language specification); the book seems to mostly be notable as the origin of that language specification, and there is already significant overlap between the two articles. - IMSoP (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I'm not sure that subject is notable either - all the citations are again to the authors of the language. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are multiple languages which claim or aim to be implementations of the specification, and it has 37 articles linking to it (whereas The Third Manifesto only has 16, mostly the same ones). If it had a single author rather than two, I'd be fine with redirecting it all to a section on the article for that author, but I think it's worthy of covering somewhere. If it's lacking good references, that's as likely to be a sign that it should be improved as that it should be deleted. - IMSoP (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incoming links are not indicators of notability (and in any case, some 30-odd of those incoming links are merely transclusions of the navbox Template:Query languages, so that really means nothing notability-wise). Independent reliable sources that cover the topic in some detail are needed to indicate notability. In the case of the book, I was not able to find any, hence this deletion nomination.

In the case of the specification, it's a bit harder as single letters are basically impossible search terms. I tried skirting around the edge searching the authors' names and adding terms like "language" and "specification" but again mostly turned up sources by the authors, which are not independent and cannot support a claim to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia overcovers obscure computer topics that don't meet out own standards for inclusion. The fact that another non-notable topic exists does not refute Premeditated Chaos arguments for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:31, 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. Sandstein 19:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Tottenham, 9th Marquess of Ely

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

Zero coverage, fails WP:BIO. British nobles aren't inherently notable, and BEFORE didn't turn up any mention of the John Tottenham who succeeded his father in 2006 in reliable sources. Debrett's as the only source is problematic, since it only namechecks the subject's ancestry. The subject also never sat in the House of Lords, so they cannot qualify for WP:NPOL either. Possible redirect target: Marquess of Ely. Pilaz (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles John Tottenham, 9th Marquess of Ely.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On balance I'd have to say Delete. The time has long passed when people of this background living in other Anglophone countries would get automatic coverage as of right in their adopted country's media. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:55, 18 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 delete. CSD G5 (User:Ijumdiya wadzani) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zinoleesky (musician)

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

Contested drafting, then contested CSD A7. I still believe this is an A7 candidate. This artist does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC and the sources do not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG the sources used are all contributor submitted write ups and are not considered reliable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No serious coverage in independent sources, yet to receive critical attention.-KH-1 (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I initially moved it to draft space[21] for failing to meet WP:NMUSIC. However, it has been improved since then and being nominated for a notable award does show some notability. Haueirlan (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the A7 no longer applies, being nominated for a notable award is a claim of significance, however I still do not see them currently meeting the requirements of WP:NMUSIC. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have improved and updated the article and it seems notable now. Sett22 (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Aside from notability. I feel the editor who created the article has a close connection to the subject from its contribution pattern. Zinoleesky is popular but does not suit to be on Wikipedia for now.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 04:55, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emdrup Church

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP. Concern is This is non-notable building. A Google search (in English) for additional information only returns the church's own web site and Wikipedia. The church fails WP:NGEO in terms of significant coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, and Denmark. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nomination states, it fails WP:GEOFEAT with no independent/reliable sources. VTVL (talk) 03:45, 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 redirect to Jan Hammer discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yeah? (album)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:NALBUM. Only source is one review by Allmusic. Google finds nothing related to the album. VTVL (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. VTVL (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jan Hammer discography. Found no coverage in my own search. QuietHere (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jan Hammer discography per above and failing WP:NALBUM Asparagusus (interaction) 13:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jan Hammer discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:07, 8 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmín Ramírez

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

Yasmín Ramírez

This biography of a living person fails verifiability because it has no independent references, and has no footnotes. The reference list is only a bibliography. There is also a draft that is almost identical to the article and has been declined as not satisfying author notability. If there were no draft, this article could be moved to draft space for the addition of proper references and for review as to notability. Since there already is a draft, this article should be deleted, and the draft can be left for improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Fictional elements, Mexico, and Texas. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Footnotes are recommended but not required and editors are not required to use the draft process. Author of a notable book: we could rename this page after the book, but it's better as is, in my opinion. pburka (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: here [22], the author admits to having done WP:PAID or WP:COI (at least) editing. Since it cannot be draftified, this is the best option so the draft can incubate. Asparagusus (interaction) 03:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kirkus is certainly independent, but that's but one of the listed sources. I'm at a loss as to why this was DELSORT'ed to fictional elements; I suggest it be removed from Fictional Elements and added to Literature. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she has several mentions in independent sources in Spanish as well as in English languages including a mention in the NY Times[23]. Haueirlan (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Delete based on the new findings. I confused her with the Art-historian of same name[24].Haueirlan (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being an author of one book that is notable per WP:NBOOK is not enough to support an article per WP:AUTHOR, which says the one book should also be a significant or well-known work, and there currently appears to be no support for this part of the guideline. Multiple reviews help make the book notable, but more is needed to make the author notable. Also, the 2017 NYT passing mention noted above does not appear to be referring to writer and associate professor Yasmín Ramírez. I am not !voting yet because I have not completed research for additional sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. She is a different person[25]. Haueirlan (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. I searched online, at GNews, and at the Wikipedia Library, and have been updating the article as I go. I am not sure there is currently enough to support notability for her debut book, and have not found sufficient support for author or other notability guideline. Art historian and curator Yasmin Ramírez may be notable, based on sources I found. Beccaynr (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Since the author blanked the content of their draft (except AFC notices), the draft has been deleted and this article could be Draftified if the participants choose this option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOOSOON. The Kirkus review is the only one I see that's not from a book seller's site. She'll likely get more reviews, but not quite there yet for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If draftified, I'll try to adapt it into a page about her book using sources such as Kirkus, Hip Latina, and KTSM. I think those are sufficient for WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have changed my !vote above per pburka. Beccaynr (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as too soon. There is WP:POTENTIAL here and it's worth preserving in some state, but isn't appropriate for Wikipedia mainspace at this time. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: The page author has moved this to Draft:Yasmín Ramírez. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC) has been reversed by an admin Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:09, 22 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 delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjeet Jaiswal

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

This person does not meet WP criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. The article, which evidently is an autobiography, simply lays out the events of his life: born, attended school, took his exams, started a business. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Article sourcing consists of his own projects; an online search reveals nothing but social media and user-generated content. Netherzone (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Netherzone (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it looks like this was a draft that was moved way too early (it even still has a comment). Obviously a WP:AUTOBIO. I was originally going to suggest draftifying it, but it's too old for that (which surprised me that it's survived so long). Sources are literally the "about us" (aka primary) sections on things he has done. Asparagusus (interaction) 02:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As of the article, He is only a normal citizen of India and also a normal businessman (Not a Billionaire). Contributor008 (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11. Spam and utterly non-notable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:42, 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 merge to Jim Jones#Early life. Consensus here, after 2 relists, is that the content of this article should be merged into the primary article on Jim Jones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of Jim Jones

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

Should be deleted or merged into the main Jim Jones article Gtag10 (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back I don't think this split was needed. Reywas92^Talk 02:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I think that, while long, it does not deserve its own article. Asparagusus (interaction) 02:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge The content was split out at my suggestion in order to reduce the length of the main article and use summary style per FA requirements. There is still no space for most of the content in the main article (which is still probably too long to pass FAC). If this article should be deleted, it's because the details are excessive to the point of being unencyclopedic/intricate detail. I have no opinion whether this is the case. (t · c) buidhe 08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer to Keep If not, I prefer to delete and not merge. The main article is already well above size limit recommended by WP:Length. Early life sub articles are common on biographies of prominent figures, eg Early life and career of Abraham Lincoln, Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson, Early life of Marcus Aurelius, Early life of Isaac Newton, Early life of Samuel Johnson, Early life of William Wordsworth, Early life of John Milton, etc, etc, etc. This is common practice for splitting lengthy biographies into sub articles. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the ultimate OSE to say that because other more famous people have subarticles (which are long than this one) that this one should have a subarticle. No one denies the concept of subarticles, but the main article is just 61kb and this one remains quite duplicative of what remains in the main article as well. Reywas92^Talk 00:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am ok with deleting this if that is consensus. But main article is over 10,000 words in the body, which is over the recommended length per WP:Length. I do not think we should merge the content back in. I do think the content is useful though, and would prefer to see it kept. Jim Jones is not a minor historical figure. There are more documentaries and books on his life than most of the aforementioned (Lincoln and Jefferson excluded) Jim Jones is one of the most wrote about figures in American history, and his early life is critical to the formation of his ideology. So it is a noteworthy topic, IMO. Cheers! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Also - just want to point out. The Early Life section of the main article is the only section of the main article which will no longer have a sub-article when this is merged back in. The main article presently has five sub article. I also point out that merging this back in would go against the recommendation of peer review, the FAC review, and the GA review of this article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Indiana. Skynxnex (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all (and only) pertinent information into main article. Trillfendi (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jim Jones#Early life, in agreement with the nominator and others that a separate article is excessive. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 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!} 19:57, 17 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) 00:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Girls

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

I was going to tag it with CSD, but figured this would be better. I don't think this deserves an article at all. Definitely fails WP:GNG. Asparagusus (interaction) 00:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Asparagusus (interaction) 00:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipe-tan(which is more notable) has almost to no coverage outside of usergenerated sources. Same should apply to this article as well.

Roostery123 (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's strangly difficult to find anything about them, but a lot of archived posts would seem to confirm it's existence.Semantism (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

edit i found a lot of things but the sites were blocked by Wikipedia's filter so i can't put the link to all of the sites my research is based on. Semantism (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's a concept that exists does not mean that it should be kept as a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) article. Asparagusus (interaction) 01:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources, try breaking up the URLs so that at least we can put the URLs back together and see what they are. Of course, if the sites are already blocked, it's unlikely that they will count as reliable independent sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be an alternative version of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan designed to insult Wikipedians, and it's barely sourced at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent coverage from reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor internet meme lacking any proper coverage. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 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.