Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 07	August 09 >

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 redirect‎ to L. Neil Smith. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roswell, Texas

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

Does not meet Notability requirements and has exactly zero references and sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Death Editor 2 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Webcomics. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps an editor with access to The Wikipedia Library or other premium databases will be able to find reviews of the book. I should point out that Roswell, Texas was a real community that should probably be the subject of an article. See https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/roswell-tx Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to L. Neil Smith. I found a brief review^[1] and a mention in Encyclopedia of Weird Westerns^[2] but not enough to support notability as a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in my personal opinion, I think it should just be mentioned in the published works section of the article. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I see now, a redirect to Smith's article is appropriate. I'll check my webcomics books tonight to see if any of them mention this at all, but I doubt I'll find much there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Schazjmd. I haven't been able to find any sources beyond the Booklist review and Green encyclopaedia entry; none of the sources in the article seem to be reliable. As such, the sources are sufficient for a one- or two-sentence mention but not an article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hays, Carl (June 2008). "Rosewell, Texas". The Booklist. Vol. 104, no. 19/20. p. 61. ProQuest 235631640.
^ Green, P. (2016). Encyclopedia of Weird Westerns: Supernatural and Science Fiction Elements in Novels, Pulps, Comics, Films, Television and Games, 2d ed. McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. p. 207. ISBN 978-1-4766-6257-2. Retrieved August 8, 2023.

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!} 21:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Asanache

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

Played 3 games for CS Concordia Chiajna and then retired in 2018 to become an account manager in Bucharest according to his LinkedIn page. I was unable to locate any coverage that would allow Asanache to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I can find are a very brief quote in Gazeta SV and a slightly longer quote in Liga 2. Quotes from Asanache himself do not count as significant coverage of him. Aside from these sources, all I can find are routine loan announcements. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CS Concordia Chiajna if he played there, as nom suggests. Not enough for standalone article. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend redirecting as he isn't mentioned there. He also played for several other notable clubs, including ASC Oțelul Galați, so would prefer deleting rather than redirecting to one of his former clubs. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A clear consensus has emerged following the addition of more sources. (non-admin closure) SN54129 13:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Gonna Pin My Medal on the Girl I Left Behind

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

This AfD was created by a now-banned user and subsequently deleted. I don't know anythin about that and only saw it because of the edit history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. What I do know is that I decided to look into the subject and see what I could uncover about it, and what I found was nothing. There were plenty of passing mentions, some of which implied the song's importance, but not much actual concrete evidence of it. The song isn't even mentioned on Irving Berlin's page, though it is listed on List of songs written by Irving Berlin. A redirect to the list page makes sense to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list page as under WP:NSONG. Even if the fact that the mentions are in passing wasn't enough to disqualify notability (which it is), there just isn't enough information for the article to ever grow beyond a stub (which is also enough to disqualify notability!). Keep, in light of new information. Aamri2 (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found and have just now added two acessible sources on Google books, one of them with specific things to say about this song's importance. I also saw some promising hits on Google Scholar, but while the song appears to have been mentioned in the body of the articles, it wasn't in the abstract, and I couldn't get past the paywall. A Wikieditor with access to a university library and its JSTOR pass could get us more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you that that is one solid paragraph (and the other a passing mention which isn't very useful). If those Google Scholar results come through then there could still be something here, but one good source (which I guess I must've missed, oops) isn't enough to change my mind just yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The original AFD was not created by a "banned user", but created by a sockpuppet of a now-blocked "vandalism only" account. The AFD should have stayed deleted. We should not even be listing this. However ... It seems to have been a significant song. I've added the link from the US Santa Barbara Discography of Historical American Recordings, as well as a link to its listings at Library of Congress historical recordings Recorded Sound Research Center (16,626), the National Jukebox (16,441) and the Recorded Sound Section, Library of Congress (6,098). Maybe it could use a little extra editing, but UC Santa Barbara and multiple listings in the Library of Congress, make this a keeper. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the sources cited support the subject's notability in the fields of both history and music. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Darkfrog24's source assessment. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Participants effectively argued how this article subject does not meet notability guidelines such as WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSICOTHER. Tellingly, no additional work has been done on this article since the AFD nomination to correct its problems so I see no reason to relist this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Flessenkaemper

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

I am not seeing how notability is met for this individual, much less how it was accepted at articles for creation with a draft sourced only to a sheet music store and his website. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:COMPOSER. None of his works are linked to articles, and the festival he (ephemerally) ran, the Amy Woodforde-Finden Music Festival, doesn't itself seem notable. He has been mentioned in independent sources, though all from the same paper, presumably local. 1 2, and a third already referenced in the article. Aamri2 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The listed links to the music store lead to the store of the publisher. However, the compositions can also be purchased from various other publishers (https://www.doblinger.at/Wir-sind-von-Gott-umgeben/220722). Thoyiqiwa (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A look at the ISBN in the category CD recordings shows that the Wikipedia criteria in

WP:NMUSICOTHER are clearly met. Besides, all articles linked to the music store have their own ISBN. Thoyiqiwa (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the contributions of Thoyiqiwa have been practically in the contested article, which they also created. -The Gnome (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can locate more independent sources like the one you referred to - not from the same paper. Thoyiqiwa (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a translation from the original article, which is verified by further references and categorizations. Among other things, with the entry of the German National Library, where you are only included as an established and published author (https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=nid%3D1214670822). Thoyiqiwa (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having published compositions and an entry in a library's database are not enough to established notability. Please note that the second point of WP:NMUSICOTHER means that he has to have notable compositions meaning that people have written articles about his music. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about just any library, but the German National Library. The GNL "is the central archival library and national bibliographic centre for the Federal Republic of Germany. It is one of the largest libraries in the world. Its task is to collect, permanently archive, comprehensively document and record bibliographically all German publications".

Regarding the other point: It is sufficient if one criterion is met in order to prove notability. But even further criteria in other categories are also met: WP:COMPOSER item 5, WP:NMUSICOTHER item 1 and 2, WP:NALBUM item 1. Thoyiqiwa (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUM concerns albums; not musicians. Criterion #5 of WP:COMPOSER asks that our subject be "listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter, or lyricist that meets the above criteria." Who might that "composer, songwriter, or lyricist" be? We have none. That leaves us with WP:NMUSICOTHER. Its criterion #1 is clearly DOA since classical music is anything but a "sub-culture" of music. Criterion #2 asks us to proffer "a number of notable melodies, tunes, or standards" our subject has composed. Yet, we find no such work in Wikipedia, the reason being none of them have been sufficiently notable for the encyclopaedia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since we cannot establish notability by WP:GNG or even WP:NCREATIVE. Let's wish this to be a case of "too soon". -The Gnome (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources don't meet GNG as of now, but this is perhaps WP:TOOSOON as The Gnome points out. Also worth noting the creator of the article is a possible SPA. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very much per The Gnome, as we wish his career trajectory well. But at this point—and with Thoyiqiwa promising to bring fresh sources to the article for four days but being unable actually to do so—the sources do not exist to support the basics of WP:ANYBIO or WP:BLPSOURCES. SN54129 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Challenge (TV series)#Spring Break Challenge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Break Challenge

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 20:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I checked some subscription-access sources and I could not find any mentions there either. The cited articles from PROMO Xtra and Lincoln Journal Star only give trivial, one-line mentions of the show, which isn't very WP:SIGCOV. Aamri2 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aamri2 (talk · contribs), would you support a merge rather than deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd support a merge, but there's so much information in the existing article. How much of it would you want to keep? Aamri2 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a selective merge to the article. To avoid undue weight issues, I think only a very small amount of content would be merged. Cunard (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Challenge (TV series)#Spring Break Challenge, where the subject is discussed, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate lemma whatever can be salvaged from this sorry mess of source-less verbiage, obviously the creation of understandable nostalgia, salvaged text to be assessed strictly on the basis of extant, reliable sources. Text unsupported by sources is not moved around Wikipedia; it gets defenestrated. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Ahmed Al-Ansari

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about lawyer and former footballer (although I'm struggling to find proof that the lawyer is indeed the former footballer) which fails WP:GNG. It reads like a CV with promotional information from his employers and links to speaking engagements and an article he authored, but nothing that is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. His footballing career might have received notice, but I can't find anything except database entries and routine coverage like match reports and squad listings. There are press releases [1] and [2] that cover his appointment to the board of FIFPro and as an arbitrator at the CAS, but they're not from independent sources (nor are they in-depth coverage). Kept at AfD several years ago before NFOOTBALL was deprecated. Jogurney (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Law, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've found press releases [1] about his role as leader of the Qatar Sports Arbitration Foundation, and while I didn't find anything asserting that he is the same person as the lawyer, it seems feasible given all the information present, although to draw that conclusion would probably be WP:SYNTH. Still, the only articles are press releases, which aren't indicative of notability according to WP:PRSOURCE, so I agree. Aamri2 (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - academic career isn't sufficient for using WP:PROF criteria, and other activities don't meet WP:GNG. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this attempt at a Wikipedia presence since subject distinctly lacks evidence of notability in the fields presented. The fact that the main contributor to the text has been a kamikaze account only amplifies the sickly aroma of promotion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salem Jamshid

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

Footballer article with no acceptable sources per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Even searches in Farsi (عبدالسالم جمشید) yielded no useful sources on him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of the subject's distinguished and significant lack of notability, per Wikipedia's criteria. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NSPORT. -The Gnome (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Róbert Oravec

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

BLP with no sign of passing WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Best Slovakian sources that I could find were MY Nitra and Piestansky Dennik, both of which only provide trivial coverage. Perhaps not surprising given that, according to Soccerway, his professional career only lasted 13 mins in total. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom due to lack of sources – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject trivially fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTIE. Note to working bee IQual: Keep up the good work! But not everything related to Slovak football is worthy of a Wikipedia article. This is not a directory. -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hapkido#Myung Jae-Nam. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myung Jae-nam

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Very scantily sourced. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Martial arts, and Korea. UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found some sources: "masterfighting.com", "hankimuye.org" and "prabook.com". There are other sources I’m too lazy to find. - User: Brachy0008 (talk)
- ~~Delete~~ Merge, per below. Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Hapkido#Myung Jae-Nam Completely fails GNG. The sources listed are not significant reliable and independent at all see below:

Sources listed by User: Brachy0008:

"masterfighting.com" Non-reliable source, blog site N
"hankimuye.org" non-independent, written by the governing body of his martial art N
"prabook.com" Blog site with a copy paste of wikipedia article. N

The two references in article:

Myung Jae Nam: Hankumdo-bub practice book. Book by the subject. non-independent N
'Myung Sung Kwan: A Study on Hankido. Thesis by the subject's son. non-independent N

Good faith google search does not show significant reliable and indepedant sources. Lethweimaster (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @Lethweimaster:, I found another source and you forgot to sign.

lowkickmma.com Mention of only 37 words. As suggested by WP:100WORDS this source doesn't count as significant coverage, and not the most reliable outlet as well, more like a martial arts blog.

Lethweimaster (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then I’d change my vote Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried searching in Korean? Found some references including https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/3594825, http://www.wtu.kr/139 (apparently there is a statue to honor him), and http://www.mooye.net/8832, etc. There are probably more out there. But interestingly the Korean article for the subject is only a minimal stub which is far shorter and does not offer more references or material for translation. - Indefensible (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hapkido#Myung Jae-Nam. He already has a section in the main Hapkido article. I'll admit it seems that significant independent coverage is lacking, but he is clearly a significant figure in hapkido's history. Perhaps a few things can be added from the existing individual article to his section in the hapkido article, although I was bothered by the lack of significant independent coverage in the Hankido, Hankumdo, and International H.K.D. Federation articles. Anyway, I strongly believe the redirect is a better choice than outright deletion. Papaursa (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Papaursa for Redirect. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the picture and references to Hapkido#Myung Jae-Nam per Papaursa. - Indefensible (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hapkido. No independent merit here, as also acknowledged above. -The Gnome (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More Than a Thousand

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Portugal, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. I do not see enough notability to pass NBAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
Delete since subject does not meet WP:GNG or even WP:BAND. -The Gnome (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Mohr

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and Texas. UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete: Surprisingly, I could not find any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that would allow for a biography of a living person. I did run across some industry related sites that used the same mentions "Highly ranked and celebrated fashion model". A "Models" site gave some personal biographical information. Forbes did list the subject as #10 on the "In Pictures: The Most Successful Male Models" list, and stated "in 2008 he was named the face of Marc by Marc Jacobs". The subject was apparently in "Momma's Man (2008)" as teen boy 1. In Disconnect (2012 film) the subject is listed in the cast but apparently a minor role. The subject was apparently in "Helmut Lang: Spring/Summer 2020 at NYFW (2019)" but I had to join to read. A problem is that a biography needs more than just a listing of jobs. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing out there that would support any notion of independent notability. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Milanović

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Nearly completely unsourced. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Croatia, and Serbia. UtherSRG (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This and the Serbian-language article are near copies and were created at the same time back in 2010, and "where is he now" sources come up quickly especially if you search the Cyrillic name. However he also dedicated a song to Ratko Mladić, so it's difficult to defend [3] [4] SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A small remark: We neither defend nor denounce inclusion on the basis of the political or ideological beliefs of an article's subject. Notability trumps all else. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. The lack of sources is telling, whether in Serbian or in English, as also the Serbian article shows. -The Gnome (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to George Forbes, 3rd Earl of Granard#Personal life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Forbes, Countess of Granard

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

Seems like a fairly minor member of the aristocracy. There's a nice painting of her but I don't see that there is much to suggest that notability is met. And WP:NOTGENEALOGY JMWt (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Ireland. JMWt (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While not able to offer a "keep" recommendation without further review, and noting that much of the sources seem to be predominantly about the subject's (male) spouse and (male) children, I'd personally recommend against outright deletion of the title. As an WP:ATD, I wonder whether (at the very least) a redirect (to George_Forbes,_3rd_Earl_of_Granard#Personal_life) would be better than outright deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Forbes, 3rd Earl of Granard#Personal life. An extensive Google Books search mirrors the article: only tertiary sources such as biographical dictionaries and genealogical namechecks. Not enough to beat WP:GNG and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. A redirect should do just fine, as most of the information found in the article is already in the George Forbes article or is WP:MILL genealogical information. Pilaz (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pilaz. Spleodrach (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Katherine Fechtel

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Coverage is limited to winning the Miss Florida pageant, making this a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - based on the article and available sources, coverage is not limited to winning the Miss Florida pageant, because she also competed in Miss America 2016, see e.g. Orlando Sentinel. Other sources include brief mentions in CBS News and AL.com, noting she was in the top-12; WGNO/ABC, reporting an early award during the Miss America competition; there is also the Orlando Sentinel with more in-depth reporting on her top-10 finish in the Miss America competition. Beccaynr (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why this one but not the dozens of other articles on beauty pageant winners who aren’t notable for anything else? Just curious. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 05:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WhistleOut

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

Tagged for notability since 2020. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites. UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A poorly-covered ad created by a disposable account. It's a shame it's been up for so long. Suitskvarts (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTPROMO. Even if sources are found for NCORP, TNT via deletion here. —siro χ o 21:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Marxer

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Aside from database entries, club and federation press releases, there is only routine coverage like [5] and [6] which doesn't address the subject in depth. Article was deleted at AfD in 2019 because it failed the GNG and the now-deprecated NFOOTBALL, but nothing has been done since re-creation to indicate the GNG is met. Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Sozi

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

This person is not a notable diplomat, having held no significant positions; sources to prove their achievements are scarce. Furthermore, LinkedIn has been used as a reference in their profile, which is not a reliable source. BoraVoro (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Uganda. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom in whole. Nothing here to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. User:Let'srun 19:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wim Vanhelleputte

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

Not notable business executive, routine announcements don't help with notability. BoraVoro (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Belgium. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standard professional profile, does not make any claim to notability, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —siro χ o 21:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to House (astrology)#Systems of house division. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midheaven

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

WP:BEFORE by Rosguill and myself shows no significant coverage in reliable sources beyond basic dictionary definitions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Astrology. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed this from the Fictional Elements DELSORT. Fringe topics do not belong pejoratively sorted as fiction. Jclemens (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies @Jclemens and QuicoleJR:, I did not intend to sort it into that category. I must have misclicked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searching now, I was able to come across this book^[1], but am doubtful of its RS status, as it appears to present a wholly uncritical perspective on astrology writ large, making it a WP:FRINGE source. Somewhat damning is the absence of any books or Google Scholar results for phrases like "Midheaven in literature", which is where we would expect to see reliable secondary coverage of the relevance of astrological topics. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not seem to have the sources for notability. Side note: Why was this under the fictional elements DELSORT? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Clement, Stephanie Jean (1994). Consciousness and the Midheaven. American Federation of Astrologers. ISBN 978-0-86690-445-2.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House (astrology) - as an WP:ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House (astrology)#Systems of house division where mentioned seems like a good choice. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Walling

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

This is a likely vanity page (the pic is "own work", and Rmwalling is contributing to the article). The sources mostly go to trivial mentions and articles by non-staff contributors. There are several interviews, some of which are in reliable sources, but I'm not really sure that can establish notability by itself, which would require secondary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rmwalling's last edit to the article was back in 2018, so I would not say that he is "contributing" to the article. 02:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) ArcAngel (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unadulterated, exemplary piece of vanity, masquerading as a Wikipedia biography. The criteria demanded by WP:GNG are not met: There is a gaping void of sources that could support the subject's quest for fame. Yes, folks have zealously posted up an avalanche of links, yet their substance is more gaseous than any balloon can take:

We have texts written by our subject, e.g. here, here and here; corporate dialogue, e.g. here, to which one can only comment with "who cares?"; articles about something else entirely, in which our subject is name-dropped once e.g. here, here, or here if one goes for Italian; a few interviews -on which, as notability proofs see WP:INTERVIEWS, and note #d in WP:OR, e.g. here; and so on. We also have irrelevant thumb-suckers as this link. But no dead links, so we have something positive.

Seriously, there is no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese Communist Party members

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

A list of CCP members would be too long to make a useful list (WP:SALAT). The CCP has almost 100 million active members and Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE. CCP membership is a good category but not a good topic for a list. SilverStar54 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This currently is an infinitely expandable list as noted.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You can imagine this being something like the example given in WP:LISTCRITERIA of List of Norwegian musicians, which is plainly on the face of it far too large a list to be comprehensive, but which remains manageable because it explicitly limits itself to only including Norwegian musicians who are individually notable. Even so, though, this list would be enormous, because virtually every important Chinese politician and a great many people in public life would be members of this list. What I think is even more important, though, is that their membership in the CCP is in many cases not the criterion on which their notability hangs (whereas many of the Norwegian musicians would not be notable if they were not musicians). In fact (following the advice at WP:LISTCRITERIA to ask "If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?"), it would be more notable for a highly successful Chinese politician to not be a member of the CCP! I also considered whether we should rename and narrow the scope of this page, but we already have a plethora of lists like Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, List of national leaders of the People's Republic of China, and Orders of precedence in China which are discrete versions of what this list would be if it were built out. Any missing subject areas can be covered with more specific list articles. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but potential rename. The list is infinitely expanding in some categories, but this list could just be the active high-ranking or significant members of the CCP (executive cabinet members, military and paramilitary leaders, etc.). This would be more notable, but also easier to maintain. Conyo14 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one allowed party in China, so there's no choice. — Maile (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party~~~~, as it seems the article was intended as that type of list.~~ Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm convinced it would be too broad a rd and there's no real target it can go to. Nate • (chatter) 21:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – too broad. Don't redirect to Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party as that is a different topic; the redirect would at best create confusion as the Politburo Standing Committee includes only an extremely small fraction of the numerous notable Communist Party members. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Far too broad; about as useful as List of brunettes. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another massive list with no real use. Right now, there are an estimated 98 million members ~~of (as noted by Maile66) the only legal party~~ in the most-populous country on the planet. What value could such a list possibly have in an encyclopaedia? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do want to note, in case this affects any !votes, that the Chinese Communist Party is not the only party -- or even the only legal party -- in China. We could for example have a list of Chinese politicians from minor parties with people like Zheng Jianbang and Cai Dafeng. But this list, which is the opposite of that list, is indeed overwhelming in scope. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List is too long and wikipedia is not a database Belichickoverbrady (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. A resturcturing as "List of notable CCP members by province" might be workable but I wouldn't really recommend it. A quick search for comparable lists for the Republican Party (United States) finds no overall list but some sublists like List of African-American Republicans and List of Latino Republicans which are very broad, as well as List of American conservatives which actually looks useful in its current state but could use clearer inclusion criteria. Overall, I think that we are inconsistent in our approach to broad lists. However, my preference is to limit them so I support 'delete' in this and similar instances. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bluedating

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

Not an established term (Google barely finds anything). The external link doesn't even mention dating. No notability, WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Icodense (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very passing mentions of the concept in media, other than that appears to be someone trying to sell an app. JMWt (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources, I doubt there are any out there. Fails GNG P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost promotional material Os ari us 11:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. There is not enough third-party coverage. This probably was a neat idea back in 2004, but nevertheless it is not notable. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolae Grigorișin

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

Current mayor of Bălți, Moldova. Based on the Russian & Romanian articles, they were also a city councillor as well as the vice-mayor. Not finding enough to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, just routine coverage. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Moldova. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors do not have notability just for being mayors, and local news will cover any mayor. It does not appear Grigorisin has received notability above and beyond simply being a mayor of the city. SportingFlyer T·C 00:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for being mayors per se — the notability test for a mayor is not passed by minimally verifying that he exists, it's passed by writing and sourcing a substantial article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this is literally "he is a mayor who exists, the end", which is not what's required — and even the Romanian interlang, while longer, still isn't actually doing what's required either, as the expanded content consists entirely of a smattering of background biographical information and his vote totals in his reelection campaigns rather than documenting anything he actually did in the job, so just translating that still wouldn't salvage this. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG. And WP:POLITICIAN. There are no sources. -The Gnome (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Boyle

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

–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Scotland. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Prod tag was added to the article, and there was discussion at Talk:Margaret Boyle#Notability, but the tag was removed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article describes no significant contributions to mathematics (or anything else), so WP:PROF is out of reach, and we have to go by WP:GNG. There are what appear to be two actual sources (not counting the obituary of her son that doesn't even use her name) but both are published by St Andrews so they are not independent, and I was unable to find Boyle in the "brief history of women at St Andrews" source. So we have no statement of significance, one non-independent in-depth source, and no independent reliable in-depth sources. This could almost be an A7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not able to see a way to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG after some searching. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of WP:NPROF. For GNG: I normally would expect individuals covered by MacTutor to be notable, but there's little in the MacTutor article as to why she might be notable, and I did not find any evidence on a search. I keep in mind that it might be harder to find sources on subjects that were active ~100 years ago, but I think we need more than is apparent here. Watching this discussion in case better evidence of notability somehow arises. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. -The Gnome (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Market window

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Finance, and Organizations. UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources, dubious notability, nothing to merge or anywhere to really merge it. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a source here. [1] There are other sources out there, which again, too lazy. Transwikifying to Wikitionary can also be an option.
Delete Dicstionary definition. Needs to be in wikidictionary if anywhere but currently unsuitable here. Lots of mentions but not intellectual depth to coverage. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 06:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term is overloaded - "market window" is also a sales term, which is what the brainmass site (not an RS one either) is covering. A few other sites I found seem derived from enwiki, but even if there is some level of suitable coverage somewhere (in which case a WP:DAB should be implemented) then State-owned enterprise is the comprehensive article covering what this is. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tue Madsen

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Denmark. UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mixing engineer. Lots of passing mentions but not real WP:SECONDARY coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 06:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject meticulously and with admirable exactitude fails WP:GNG. All one can find are announcements, typical listings, and irrelevancies. -The Gnome (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Kononenko

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. NN beauty pageant contestant. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Fashion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No clear notability. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:GNG. One more text from times passed in Wikipedia, when vanity articles were not being hunted down convincingly enough. -The Gnome (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zakia Kohzad

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, Afghanistan, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Subject meets WP:VANITY but fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conduction zone

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

This page is original research based on unpublished article "Unified Theory of Low and High-Temperature Superconductivity" written by User:Jerry Z. Liu, the original author of this page. The unpublished article itself is crackpot science. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content of this page is almost identitical to this page, which is a paper (not peer-reviewed) by no one else but "Liu, Jerry Z. Ph.D." according to the website. I consider this a major violation of Wikipedia's rules. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That page has been copied from Wikipedia and perhaps modified. The references still contain links to wikipedia and there is even a See also section. It is not clear that there is a violation. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are so many reasons for deletion that it's hard to pick one: original research, self-promotion, lack of sources, lack of notability, crackpottery... Tercer (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term "conduction zone" is used in only one unpublished personal web page reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete per G12, obvious copyright violation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the material you think is in violation of copyright. I did not see any. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually the entire article is copied verbatim from the link provided by TheLoneLyPanther. That website's content is not loaded by Earwig. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Seems like this reason to delete would be easily worked around. But there are others. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible, for any or all of the smorgasbord of reasons provided above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, self-promotion, notability, copyvio. (I doubt crackpottery directly violates any WP guidelines.) Maproom (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE is the relevant guideline for crackpottery. But it is mostly an elaboration of WP:OR, WP:N and other fundamental policies. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe is an assessment of notability. "Crackpot" assumes a judgement of ideas, which we should avoid. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And we never say "crackhead". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guideline we may use judgement and label the theories as ‘bogus’. See WP:FRINGE/PS. I’d argue that the case is clear enough here, with big claims of this being a “theory of everything”. Also, the theory does not originate from the physics community so WP:FRINGE/ALT does not apply. But I agree that crackpot is a nasty word, and I could have used the word pseudoscience instead. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, self-promotion Constant314 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per clear guidelines and consensus.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above. A classic case of why notability requirements help filter unreliable articles.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very ambitious unified theory of superconductivity sourced only from the author's personal webpage (WP:OR). Sources cited like Ashcroft and Mermin have plenty of discussion about the conduction band and the Brillouin zone, but they definitely don't discuss a "conduction zone". 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 22:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as junk science. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per all of the above. There is original research and some parts are unsourced, which is detrimental especially for a scientific article. Also, most of the contents covered in this article are covered in other articles. HarukaAmaranth (話) 00:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sooraj Tom

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised the article survived the first time, because now Mr. Tom's back for another go-around. As per the nomination, the article fails WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. Per the first nomination, he also fails WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article itself is only about the films he himself has directed and nothing else. Nothing about his epic upbringing into a filmmaker. Nothing. Only dust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IncompA (talk • contribs) 12:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awards won are trivial, not much else for sourcing. I can't find anything. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The latter, despite claims to the contrary, is trivially not met, since subject has never, or not yet, created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, to which also the filmography section in the article testifies. Further search only confirms the void. A small note: As it happens, I'm rather fond of the type of work done by the likes of Sooraj Tom. But Wikipedia is not a cinema directory nor a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KaatiZone

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

Marked for notability concerns 11 years ago. No coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Karnataka. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A couple book mentions but everything falls short of WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page is planned to be updated very soon with the updated guidelines and policies. Sumitmontygupta (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Sumitmontygupta:, you stated you were going to update the page but I only see this as an addition which uses the company website and another reference which doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Were you able to locate additional references that can show notability? If so, ping me here and if convincing I will gladly change my vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41. I added some more references on the page. I can add more like this and this. I hope these are convincing. Please share your thoughts. Sumitmontygupta (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see the references you added which was the official website of the company along with some company profiles from various publications. Neither of these would meet WP:ORGCRIT. The two references you posted above include one from LBB which is two sentences and the other is a redirect to the homage of Economictimes. Can you show how either of these would meet the ORGCRIT criteria?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for an update from User:Sumitmontygupta and more discussion on the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Hindi films of 2021. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raag (2021 film)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, only 1 review found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless at least another review is presented, I'd suggest Redirect to List of Hindi films of 2021.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I would support this redirect option. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Mór Seoighe

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

An ancestor of the author James Joyce and some other notables. The current sourcing is from a book about James Joyce's father. Various passing mentions can be found, all in the context of his descendants. I do not see significant coverage and feel the GNG is not met in this case. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NBIO, WP:INHERIT, WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:GNG. As noted, being a distant ancestor of the writer John Stanislaus Joyce (or his perhaps more famous son James Joyce) doesn't confer notability. And that seems to be the only claim to notability being made in the article. In terms of the sources, those in the article are entirely about the subject's descendants and the subject is only mentioned in passing (and then in very vague terms with conjecture and conflicting "family tradition[s]"). In terms of other sources, a book search or a journal search for the subject ONLY returns works/mentions which are substantively about the subject's notable descendants (with nothing that allows expansion beyond the short and uncertain prose we already have and the vague "exact relationship uncertain" WP:NOTGENEALOGY family tree - that doesn't appear to be supported by anything at all). This looks like (yet another) one of those WP:NOTEVERYTHING submissions from the article's original author that doesn't meet the project's criteria. Certainly having a notable great-great-great-great-great-great grandchild doesn't confer notability... Guliolopez (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. Guliolopez has nailed it. -The Gnome (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jinpyo

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

Tagged for notability since 2010 and for unsourced since 2009. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Buddhism, and Korea. UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Jinpyo is a name used by other individuals later as well so that potentially obfuscates any results about this individual. I see a lot of search results mentioning this article's subject building, rebuilding, or expanding temples, but nothing that goes into any detail about the individual himself. However, sources may very well exist, but just in a way that I cannot access. I did find some potential books that I couldn't access that may or may not go into detail about this individual, and as an 8th-century Korean monk it's reasonable to assume that sources may exist in Korean that remain inaccessible to me due to a language barrier. However I can't argue that an article should be kept because I think reliable sources might exist that show notability, so until notability can be established I don't think there should be an article about this individual, not least of all because without sufficient sources there's no guarantee that the details in the article are even correct. If sources can be found, please ping me and I will be glad to reassess, but from what I can find WP:GNG isn't met. - Aoidh (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jibson

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. Also a probable WP:AUTOB. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage; the only coverage in RS I could find was passing mentions in articles about his brother Michael Jibson. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the first opportunity, since the article's subject clearly fails basic criteria for inclusion in a Wikipedia bio. -The Gnome (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intrigue (band)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On the National Library of Norway's website alone, the band is referred to in 34 books, 885 newspapers, and 6 magazines. When you turn to the Finnish side of the border, it is referred to multiple times too. The recently added keyword system in Ávvir even turns up hits. It's not particularly difficult to find sources for this band[7][8][9][10][11][12], which passes WP:NBAND and WP:GNG just fine. -Yupik (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the Áillohaš Music Award is one of the most prestigious Saami music awards. It is not conferred to non-notable bands and musicians. -Yupik (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The previous voter makes a convincing case on how the band is well-covered in their community's media, and they have a prestigious award too. Their basic name can make searching tough, but search in conjunction with member names or album titles, and non-English news articles are not too difficult to find. Meanwhile, even though the article has been waiting for sources for many years, that does not alleviate the need for a WP:BEFORE search that could have been done by the nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Identity Performance

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, as well as WP:OR and Essay. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Social science. UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems reasonably well-sourced and an idea that does have some support among academics (not OR). The article is a little too essay-like for my liking, so it should be rewritten, but I don't think it rises to the level of deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept is covered by scholarly sources. If it looks like an essay, why not work on improvement instead of deleting it? Darwin Naz (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I don't see OR here. In fact, I can't find a good defence of the original WP:N tag, either, considering the breadth depth of RS. Yes, it needs a rewrite, but so do about a quarter the articles on Wikipedia. That is an opportunity for improvement, not deletion. I do not see how deleting this article will improve Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is clear consensus to delete this article as written. Whether an article broader than Operation Valuable is needed is not a question for AfD, and should be settled by talk page discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo–American invasion of Communist Albania

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

Clearly a POV fork of the article Operation Valuable and originally researched for the most part. There was no "Anglo-American invasion". Most reliable sources describe it as a covert paramilitary operation to topple a regime. The only source (a source of questionable academic value) which called it an "invasion" is this source and probably some other tabloids and blogs like this one. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, United Kingdom, and United States of America. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

For clarity, all confirmed sockpuppet comments have been moved into this collapsed section.

Keep Operation Valuable was the only British operation to last until 1954. It was part of the invasion, during which the Americans conducted two other operations: Operation OBOPUS/FIEND and Operation Economic Warfare and also it was considered a covert invasion if we want we can change it to another name but deleting it would be pointless Christopherschweinsteiger (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Checkuser note: -- blocked sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Another major contributor to this article was also blocked as a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked NormalguyfromUK - Llaberia. Of note here, NormalguyfromUK had been sanctioned for misusing sources in the past.
  
  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It's interesting that some IPs which have not been around for years have re-appeared to comment here. This matter should be looked into. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello I have looked at the whole discussion here and also had a look at what and I also agree that it is not a POV fork, Operation Valuable is only added here as a section on this, I have also researched and read that this operation is only the which was British and there were 2 more operations so the American was part of the invasion
El Mangupo (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep POVFORK? So to me it doesn't look like this is a POVFORK on this one also I've researched and looked at the page and a lot has been added here one thing I would only suggest is to improve the page but to say it's a POV FORK I don't understand that too StephenMacky because I completely agree Based Shqiptar from Pirok as far as I understand it too is your actual problem the name of the article so why then start a discussion page to order deleting the article instead of starting a discussion on the talk page because of the name of the article
37.35.66.123 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title, infobox, and beginning of the article portrays this as an invasion that happened and failed, whereas the body of the article is WP:CRYSTALBALLing the possibility of an invasion. This entire article is better explained and nuanced by Operation Valuable, and there is nothing here not already stated there. Jebiguess (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Operation Valuable section talks about Operation Valuable there rest is completely new and what about all those sources that state it as a conflict? Like i said before we can discuss about the name of the page but not if it actually happened because it did and i have added sources to back my claims. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously as a WP:POVFORK. Not an invasion (no, not even a "covert invasion", whatever that is). Redirect back to Operation Valuable where Anglo–American Invasion of Communist Albania still is directed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can discuss the name of the page but not whether it actually happened because It did, The sources clearly called it an invasion. Operation Valuable was a part of the invasion, in all the invasion had around 3 Operations (that I know of) Operation Valuable, Operation BG/Fiend and Operation Economic Warfare. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So your main problem with the page is the name? StephenMacky1, if that is true you could've just gone to the talk section and write it there not try to delete the whole page that has over 25 sources which are reliable. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It does appear to be a POVFORK and the differentiators between it and Operation Valuable appear to be OR or SYNTH. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it POVFORK if only the Operation Valuable section talks about it? 92.53.49.241 (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork of the already problem-ridden Operation Valuable 123.243.216.213 (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(sockpuppet comment removed)
How it can be POVFORK, and otherwise give examples. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 19:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Jugoslav Association of Minnesota

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Yugoslavia, United States of America, and Minnesota. UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet the criteria of the relevant notability guideline at WP:NCORP. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen B Menon

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

Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia, IMDb, and other unreliable sources used as references. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Film. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 11:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 16:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 10:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County bus routes

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

Yet anoter bunch of bus routes with nothing to suggest why they are notable. No sources, appears run of the mill. Wikipedia is not a bus guide or collection of niche bus trivia Ajf773 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Transportation, and Texas. Ajf773 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Fails WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTGUIDE, to some extent WP:NOTDIR, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral Song (The Rasmus song)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Finland. UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I didn't find anything. But there are a bunch of links on the Swedish article. Suitskvarts (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I had attempted to add some sources from the Swedish Wikipedia. However, most of the sources are just fan sites, except for one OK quality review of the song. I didn't find much beyond those references. I believe it fails notability guidelines as well. Tintinthereporter226 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to McLean (singer). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally in Love

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:SINGLE. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to McLean (singer) per WP:NSONG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rosguill to McLean (singer) as a valid ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Menon

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. Not received "significant coverage" in "multiple" independent reliable sources. Primarily based on The Hindu interviews, others being routine coverage about film. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Padiyoor

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. An "important figure"? "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? No, fails WP:NCREATIVE as well. -The Gnome (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userful

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

Non-notable subject. Written like promotional material. All citations are from PR press releases. No in-depth coverage in RS. Sabih omar 07:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supported by nothing but press releases.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep convert it about its platform, meets WP:NWEB. Reliable coverage: [13], [14], [15]. 2001:1970:5016:3D00:B5:EC38:FAE0:8C5D (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note None of these sources indicate notability per WP:GNG. Subject is not web-based, so no relevance of WP:NWEB (or am I missing something?) Also 2001:1970:5016:3D00:B5:EC38:FAE0:8C5D is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account created only for adding the 3 links mentioned above and adding the "Keep" comment. Sabih omar 03:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient independent, reliable sources to meet WP:CORP, which is the relevant guideline. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Andrade

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that fails WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New Jersey. Let'srun (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchitektur

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

Unsourced tag since 2016. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Charsaddian (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM. Longhornsg (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ablum by Duplex!

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

Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Charsaddian (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the only album by the group (whose page also needs a lot of cleanup) with an article, and it doesn't present any information beyond a tracklist that otherwise justifies it. A mention on the band's page is probably enough. Peribirb (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way back in the dark wikiages of 2006, Wikipedia's approach to the notability of albums was of the "any album released by a notable artist or band is inherently notable regardless of sourcing" — but that was long ago kiboshed, and has been replaced with having to get the album over WP:GNG in its own right. This album doesn't meet the stricter standards of 2023 at all, and in fact by the standards of 2023 even the band's notability is more questionable than it would have been by 2006 standards. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I recognize the need to be diligent in searching for sources on topics that may lack online coverage; however, we must have some solid evidence that coverage exists, and in this case it appears that the argument to keep rests on her having been a pageant contestant, which does not have consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melanne Pennington

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

Does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and West Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is the claim of lack of significant coverage because no coverage exists, or because you couldn't find it online? This is someone who would likely be covered in West Virginia newspapers during the 1980's—presumably the Charleston Gazette and Charleston Daily Mail, possibly others, such as the Huntington Herald-Dispatch, Parkersburg News, Wheeling Intelligencer—of which very few issues are available online (for example, Newspapers.com has the Daily Mail up to 1977, including some years of the Sunday Gazette-Mail, but none of the others, and no West Virginia newspapers of note during the 1980s; the Google News Archive seems to have only the Point Pleasant Register—a small town paper—from 1986 to 2004). But it's quite likely that these papers would have covered "Miss West Virginia 1984", and even more likely that they would have mentioned her death or the governor naming her a "Distinguished West Virginian" a few years later. Have you searched for coverage in likely sources, or was this limited to Google searches and online newspapers? P Aculeius (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius - He's doing a mass run through of various pageant contestants. He has nominated 9 beauty pageant articles in the last 3 days. I do not believe all of these nominations could have possibly been researched properly and I think it's asking a lot of people interested in this subject to go through this many articles at once.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to having my doubts as to the notability of national beauty pageant contestants (as opposed to winners, or people who first came to public attention through pageants). But doubts aren't enough to determine notability, IMO, and I've seen many more articles nominated for deletion that shouldn't have been if a thorough search for coverage had been made, than I have articles for which there really was no justification.

In this case, I strongly suspect there's local newspaper coverage of some kind, but I also know that there are very few West Virginia newspapers from the 20th century available online. I do know there are archives besides the ones I have access to, and of course various libraries have these papers on microfilm, but they're not very easy to search if you don't know the exact dates you need. It seemed unlikely that the nominator would have searched them, but it was worth asking. It's technically the responsibility of the person nominating articles for deletion to show that significant coverage does not exist or is unlikely to exist. It's not the responsibility of those opposing the nomination to find coverage, although it nearly always works out that way.

If the nominator hasn't looked for coverage in the sources most likely to provide it, then I think this nomination should fail—along with other similar nominations if the nominator didn't search for sources other than on Google. There's a world of print sources that simply aren't available online, and it's not sufficient to report that online news sources don't provide coverage for events of local or regional interest from over thirty years ago. P Aculeius (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I searched beyond google, to be clear. Let'srun (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, news doesn't equate to notability. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News verifies facts that make people notable; the extent of news coverage is what SIGCOV is about. And the relevant question isn't whether "any sources other than Google" were searched—it's what sources were searched?. Since we know reliable sources that are not widely available or available at all online exist, and probably include coverage of the subject of this article, the article cannot be fairly deleted without checking those sources. P Aculeius (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I searched all sources I had available. Fair point regarding the coverage of newspapers on newspapers.com and Google, but even so that would still make her fall into WP:BLP1E. I also could not find any coverage of her receiving the Distinguished West Virginian award, and it does not appear to be sourced in the article as is. Let'srun (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E explicitly states that it only applies to living persons, or to persons who have recently died. Pennington died in 1988, so this policy clearly does not apply. Different standards apply to the notability of people who have been deceased for a considerable amount of time. The policy also specifically refers to people notable for only a single event; being named a "Distinguished West Virginian" by the governor would presumably be a notable event in addition to her being named "Miss West Virginia" and representing the state in a national pageant.

The fact that you couldn't find coverage of this is irrelevant if there are likely to be reliable sources that would verify it, and again—if you didn't review West Virginia newspapers (specifically Charleston newspapers, IMO, given both where Pennington was from and the governor's involvement) from 1988 (or local coverage of the pageant; there was likely some mention of Miss West Virginia prior to or following the pageant), then WP:BEFORE has not been satisfied. The fact that these papers may not be available online is irrelevant.

It may also be possible to contact the governor's office and find out whether there is a list of "distinguished West Virginians" named in past years, or a reference that might mention them (for example, the West Virginia Blue Book for 1989 might mention such recognition). The offices of the Gazette might have an index mentioning people and events by name, topic (awards or proclamations by the governor), or date. At the very least I would expect an obituary to verify the date of Pennington's death, and perhaps fill in some details; and it's likely that there'd be a short news story on or around the same date, since clearly her death at a young age came to the governor's attention. Unless sufficient information can be found to suggest that any of the facts mentioned in the article are hoaxes—i.e. a diligent search of sources that ought to mention them turns up nothing, meaning that the sources that would mention them, if any, have been identified and searched—this nomination should fail. P Aculeius (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the blue book before; it doesn't state such recognition. Let'srun (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably acts of the governor are recorded somewhere, and as stated above, there should be newspaper coverage. The fact that the Blue Book doesn't mention it doesn't tell us that it didn't occur. Perhaps the thing to do would be to find out what was done in some other instance of the governor naming someone a "Distinguished West Virginian" and then figure out where—besides the newspaper—it was recorded—or to ask the Governor's office what would be done if someone were named a "Distinguished West Virginian" today. That might tell us where to look, assuming the process hasn't changed since 1988. P Aculeius (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - We must be careful to avoid WP:SBEXT. Newspapers.com does not have any West Virginia newspapers from 1984 on their website - See here. This is important as not only do we not have that, we don't have footage of any local television or radio broadcasts either, which would be the main sources of coverage. This is also pre-internet, so there will be little there. A lack of access to sources is different from not having any sources. There is some coverage on her here 1 and with her winning the pageant, being awarded an award from the governor of West Virginia and passing away unexpectedly at a young age, I expect more coverage to exist as it's an interesting story.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a non-notable person - the article fails WP:GNG on its face, and everything I can easily find online is basically either a Wikipedia mirror or a photo of her posing with the president of West Virginia university. I think we can probably redirect this to a list of West Virginias and I have no problem with re-creation if better sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer - I do think we have to keep in mind that newspapers.com does not have any West Virginia newspapers from when she won, where she would likely be covered. This is on top of us not having any local radio or television broadcasts and missing any other kind of local material that likely would have mentioned her on top of being pre-internet era. It seems very unlikely that someone received an award from the governor, won the state's beauty pageant and died very early yet no coverage existed.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other places you can search to show there might be sources. Does ProQuest cover that time period? SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer - I have found two mentions. I don't know anything about this site, so I can't speak any further. 1 and 2 KatoKungLee (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More information has popped up. Pennington had an award named after her called, "Melanne Pennington Quality of life award" from - https://newspaperarchive.com/bluefield-daily-telegraph-jun-24-1991-p-1/ KatoKungLee (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more opinions here. And while sources may be difficult to find, they are necessary for verification. The absence of available sources can't be twisted around to be seen as proof that sources exist. We can only use what is findable, not what we imagine might exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - until someone can actually cite references in appropriate reliable sources, we can't just assume notability. Possibly there are paper or microfiche copies of the newspapers in local archives, but until someone goes to look I don't really see how we get any further forward. JMWt (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. Some attempts to deny or ignore these failings, admirable though they may appear when first glanced, read like "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" more than anything. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to University of Waterloo Faculty of Mathematics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Education in Mathematics and Computing

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

For a full explanation, see my talk page. A tl;dr version is that I went through a long WP:BEFORE search initially hoping to get rid of this page's reliance on primary sources, found one which might count toward satisfying notability guidelines, and a ton of others which don't due to being primary, not independent, or non-significant coverage of the subject. No prejudice against redirection if a good target is found (University of Waterloo is currently not) or against keeping if adequate sources are found. ~UN6892 ^t_c 04:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Mathematics, Computing, and Canada. ~UN6892 ^t_c 04:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Waterloo Faculty of Mathematics and add a 1–2 line mention there. I don't think the available sourcing can support more than that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the Harry Potter films

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

Despite what the name suggests, this appears to be a WP:FANCRUFTy, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and largely unsourced list of ... "themes and motifs" in the Harry Potter series, rather than the in-depth behind-the-scenes info and critical analysis you would expect — a stark contrast from other "Music of..." articles such as Music of Star Wars, Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Music of The Lord of the Rings film series. Unless this article is nuked and rewritten into a well-developed article similar to the other three I mentioned, this trivial list of themes should not have its own article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very little information of value. —El Millo (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning move to draft. I feel like this is something that could be the subject of an article, though this isn't quite it. BD2412 T 04:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT applies. There is virtually no content in this article's present state that is worth keeping, though editors are welcome to recreate a new article with the same title but with entirely different content. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 08:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say to merge the individual films' soundtrack articles here, but agree that the list of motifs is not valuable and would need at least sourcing. Reywas92^Talk 13:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nom makes no case that the article is improper... just that it sucks. Hard to think that music from less than a dozen (no, I'm not going to go count) films and maybe some stage adaptations is indiscriminate. The title is a valid WP:SS parent for all the individual soundtracks, so... Edit it to remove issues, but no, there's no reason articulated to delete this article. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment regarding WP:TNT above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus for any particular outcome. Also, Merges are more easily accomplished if someone is volunteering to do the merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Notable subject, We have plenty of soundtrack articles, I do agree this needs work but again AFDISNOTCLEANUP, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunheri Nagin

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

Fails notability guidelines. Sources are blogs. Okoslavia (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before does not revealing anything. Okoslavia (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If considered insufficiently notable in itself, redirect to Helen (see here or in [16]). But it may be notable in itself!-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I similarly can find no evidence of notability. StereoFolic (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A work lacking an adequate amount of sources that could support its notability. The term "adequate" is generous. -The Gnome (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No standalone notability under WP:NFILM. I don't think it's obvious that we should redirect this to Helen (actress); why not any other notable actor who was involved here? I think it's much better to have nothing here, rather than a redirect, per WP:R#DELETE#10: [A redirect should be deleted] if the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. To me, it's quite plausible that someone digs up some obscure reviews or other sources on this film and writes an article out of them. Redlinks encourage article creation, or so we assume. No redirect, please. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Baltayan

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

No achievement so far. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Charsaddian (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is doomed to be a stub forever in my opinion. Her achievements and biography are already sufficiently covered elsewhere, and is not notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia according to WP:ATHLETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentdoge (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doomed to be a stub forever? At the age of 16 she's already won an international professional tournament, she's represented her country and she's won multiple national U19's. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and France. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's won a professional tournament in the international tour. That alone makes her notable already. She also represents her country. And she has won multiple international under 19 tournaments. And all that by the age of 16. And she was the youngest ever European player to win a PSA title.^[1] Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrVogel, per wide consensus, sportspeople are required to meet GNG and a GNG-contributing source must be cited in their article. Her achievements do not confer or even predict notability; sourcing must be found that demonstrates she actually is notable. JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with whats already been written. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
with what specifically? Dr. Vogel (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Baltayan won the Open des Bretzels, which was a Challenger 5 level competition,^[2] the second lowest challenger level,^[3] so I doubt that it indicates notability on its own. TSventon (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. It's a professional tournament in the world tour. And several other reasons have been presented as well. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep I have no idea what's going on with the SPAs in this discussion, but anyways. In addition to the actual major tournament win, we also have significant coverage of her across years. Here and here are just two examples. Silver seren^C 02:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, I couldn't find any good sources online. Le Parisien looks like a start, could you access the entire L'Alsace article? I couldn't see significant coverage and it is also local coverage of an event in Mulhouse. The tournament is at challenger 5 level, which I believe means a top prize of $5,000 and it is aimed at younger athletes. TSventon (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

$5K may seem meagre to outsiders, but that's the reality of squash. There's orders of magnitude difference between prize money in squash and for example tennis. Low money doesn't mean it's not a significant tournament in the professional world tour. Which BTW I think it's tremendously unfair to these superb athletes. Dr. Vogel (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a major event champion and per the sources added by Silverseren which show some level of notability. And even if these are not quite to the level of WP:GNG, then we need to use WP:COMMONSENSE and keep the article anyway because Wikipedia is better off having an article about one of the top young athletes in their game. Frank Anchor 18:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers, but can someone fix the gibberish in the infobox! Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only independent coverage of her I can find - already quoted above by keep !voter - clearly fails WP:YOUNGATH. No problem with re-creation once she becomes notable, but as of yet, she clearly fails WP:GNG, and winning a professional tournament - especially one with a prize of only $5k - means nothing. SportingFlyer T·C 13:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as explained above, the prize money means nothing. Prize money in squash is ridiculously low. This is a major tournament. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More sources that discuss the subject have been added. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of which was a brief mention from the French Squash Federation and the other of which was an interview from the same organisation, which still unfortunately doesn't count towards WP:GNG. This may just be WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 16:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are sources written about the subject. And they join the various other sources that talk directly about the subject and consist of prose that gives information about her biography. And there are more, e.g. found by @Silver seren, which we can't access due to paywalls.

I think WP:TOOSOON would apply if, for example, this athlete had had a brilliant junior career, but had yet to win a senior professional tournament.

That is not the case here. This athlete has won a senior professional tournament, and is in fact the youngest European, male or female, to ever achieve that, as some of the sources discuss.

It's remarkable that there are several sources written about her, given the low coverage that squash gets because it's not on TV. And even more remarkable for a female athlete.

Those unfamiliar with squash may not know about the comparatively lower coverage because it's not on TV. And not being on TV also means smaller prize money. Things need to be taken in context.

And there's also the common sense and better off points made by @Frank Anchor and @Johnbod. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's a young athlete who hasn't been covered in any non squash-related coverage, as far as I can tell. All but one source currently in the article has some sort of problem with demonstrating notability - not independent of the subject or simple links to events she's played in. The only possibly good source in the article for notability is the Le Parisien article. If she keeps it up and there's more coverage, she's eligible, but unfortunately after a big brouhaha - if I can invoke a little French - over sports stubs we no longer keep sports stubs based on database entries and non-independent sources. SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean - there are multiple sources cited in the article, where multiple authors from multiple different organisations have written about the subject. And WP:ATHLETE only requires 1. Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORT requires GNG to be met, which means multiple SIGCOV IRS sources. SPORTSBASIC requires at least one source to be cited in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are explicitly excluded from counting toward notability because they are not independent of the subject. NSPORT is very clear on this. JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Baltayan does not pass GNG. The fact that Squash is a relatively unpopular sport that few watch is an explanation as to why she is not notable, not a reason for why the article should be kept. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. My point is that, despite squash receiving far less coverage than say for example tennis, this player has been the subject of multiple pieces. Multiple authors, from multiple organisations, including 2 French newspapers, have written about her. Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TOOSOON. Although she has some decent coverage found above, the sourcing just isn't enough to overcome YOUNGATH and GNG issues. JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here and I'd rather not close it as No Consensus yet so I'm relisting it for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources which provide enough coverage to pass GNG especially considering squas receives much less overall coverage than many other sports. Also, any YOUNGATH concerns are invalid since she was the winner of a professional squash tournament on the world tour. Carson Wentz (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Rock Recording Company

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

Preliminary ~~WP:BASIC~~ WP:BEFORE check did not find significant independent coverage in reliable sources in the perspective of our guidelines WP:NCORP, WP:GNG and WP:ORGIND and I don't believe this company is notable enough to have an entry here. WP:INHERITORG clearly shows association with notable people do not implicitly make it notable by association. Sources must directly cover the article subject in question. Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the insistences of the nominator (in other recent AfDs), there is no reason to ignore music expertise in assessing the encyclopedic value of music-related articles, and so WP:MUSIC's sense of an important indie label applies here. Arena Rock certainly qualifies as one of them, and their roster (of several dozen important artists) is of substantial importance to telling the story of independent rock music in the 2000s. NOTINHERITED, I maintain as I have elsewhere, is a red herring; labels are only notable for releasing notable music, and for no other reason! There are no WP:V issues in demonstrating the roster, and the article has some sourcing to boot; there's even a category for this label, complementing the list and helping serve the Wiki's information-provision function by interlinking the bands that share this label (which can't be done any other way than through a label list or label category). Chubbles (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Policy based arguments are encouraged and these run of the mill articles are why notability guidelines exist. While your argument of evaluating record labels through a different lens is your personal take on this, this is not backed by community consensus developed policy and you're welcome to start an RFC persuading the community to make record labels unlike others. Graywalls (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again there's even a category for this label created by none other than this single purpose that edited for about two years only about things related to ARRCO. The account appears to have been controlled by the company or a public relations editing service. @Chubbles, were you aware of these edits likely made for PR purposes? Graywalls (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like promotional editing, but it is irrelevant to determining notability or encyclopedic importance. Lots of people who turn out to be notable write their own articles; it's lamentable, but sometimes produces good ends, and a commonsense category listing is a good end. Certainly, this is a record label I'd heard of before I even started editing here, so this is not a case of me being "hoodwinked" by some promotional account. Chubbles (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the amount of independent and reliable source material available about this company would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Union Properties PJSC

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

Typical large real estate development business with the sort of routine coverage all such firms receive. Not seeing the notability, and the promotional tone of the article hardly helps. Mangoe (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Skynxnex (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the largest developers in the country, listed on the Dubai Financial Market (and as we speak one of the 5 most traded stocks on that exchange). The article is an absolute horror, but deletion is not cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources with which to build a reliable article.^[17] Financial scandal and the arrest of the chairman are hardly "the sort of routine coverage all such firms receive"

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is true that not every company will have public investigations of illegal conduct associated with it, and there are about 7 English language news articles about this incident, but I feel I need to again emphasise there are differences between a topic that is newsworthy and one that would be notable under our guidelines. Reading those articles, I think the one that is the closest to being considered significant coverage would be the Gulf News (insofar as it is even possible to say any one of them is the "closest") and I don't think there are two consecutive sentences that would meet the commentary, analysis, discussion that we would expect from a source used to establish notability, under the GNG or basic criteria of any of our SNGs. Admittedly, there are also Arabic news articles, when searching for شركة الاتحاد العقارية, numbering roughly a gross, which is significantly more than the 84 English language news articles I get for "Union Properties" PJSC, and I am not sufficiently literate in the language to perform more than a cursory review, but of the roughly a dozen I have looked at, the contents are the textbook "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" like much of the English language coverage, which does not exactly engender confidence that qualifying coverage exists. I have serious questions whether it truly is possible to improve the article. Perhaps there are older, offline sources. Even then, that raises the question, whether there is any content currently in the article worth salvaging. Reading the actual article under discussion, there seems to be very little encyclopedic content, and one has to wonder if one would not be better served, should one find the sources, by starting entirely afresh. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the available sourcing would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NCORP has a high standard for independence (not a concern in this case), but it doesn't establish a particularly high standard for depth of coverage. I'm basing this largely on WP:CORPDEPTH, in particular this: [Appropriate] coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. I think the sources we have do go significantly beyond "brief mentions and routine announcements", particularly with regards to financial misconduct investigations (e.g. AP, Al Jazeera). There is no equivalent to BLP1E for companies, and thus, the sources we have are more than sufficient for establishing notability under NCORP, even if the appropriate sources relate to only one event. Of course Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but there is enough depth of coverage here to build an article beyond a permastub; another criterion from WP:CORPDEPTH. Other aspects of WP:ORGCRIT don't seem particularly contentious; there's coverage in multiple (check) reliable (check) secondary (check) sources that are independent of the subject (check). I don't see any other issues. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people in Playboy 2010–2020

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

Please see WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. This is a bunch of unsourced or poorly sourced trivia. (There are also lists for previous decades; depending on how this AfD goes, I might nominate them for deletion as well). gnu 57 02:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month (a notable list).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on notability, but the article appears pretty discriminate. SportingFlyer T·C 13:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see if there is more support for a Redirect here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Per nom. A redirect to the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month makes sense here. Let'srun (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Cole

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

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

There is nothing here which implies notability. She has appeared on reality TV, likes fitness and it married to a footballer, nothing of merit or notability in her own right. Egghead06 (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Health and fitness, and Fashion. Egghead06 (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She was a minor celebrity in the UK and such notability is not temporary. She was (moderately) notable under her old name before she married Cole. There are a lot of Google News hits and, while most are pretty crappy, the best of them do show fairly significant coverage in fairly reliable sources. (The search hits for "Carly Zucker" show a mixture of her and a different Carly Zucker who is married to Jason Zucker.) The article could be better referenced but it is not promotional or overblown. Four short paragraphs is about right given her level of notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found some minor tabloid coverage, but not enough here to warrant a stand-alone page IMO.-KH-1 (talk)
Keep: It's not deep content but she seems to pass WP:GNG due to the amount of coverage about her.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on keeping the article, but I've just added some more context about her notability and overall provided stronger sourcing from reputable outlets like The Independent and The Telegraph. If she is deemed to lack notability for her own entry, I would recommend redirecting to Joe Cole due to the extensive media coverage of their relationship. Bridget (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources here are in the form of interviews, and the remainder are fluff "celebrity" pieces. I don't find anything more serious or extensive. Lamona (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm suprised this is still open. I endorse a no consensus close.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S. Mageswaran

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

Fails the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR. Specifically fails Criterium 1 - the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. (Google Scholar doesn't indicate high citation rates). Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone. Noting the University of Jaffna is a primary source. Dan arndt (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Engineering, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See the citation numbers at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22mageswaran+sivapathasuntharam%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: likely meets WP:NSCHOLAR criterion 1,d:

"…naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, apart from the fact that this is reliant on an outdated unreliable primary source (WordPress is not usually considered an acceptable or reliable source) - which indicates that the lectures only went until 2017 not that they are ongoing. There are no independent/secondary sources provided to confirm this. Dan arndt (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a notice from 2022, which does not appear to be on Wordpress. However, In much of the world, hosting official webpages on free hosting websites like Wordpress is perfectly normal, and that seems to be what the University of Jaffna or the particular department is doing in this case. The relevant guideline should therefore be something like WP:BLOGS: is this credibly the University of Jaffna's website being hosted on Wordpress, and is the University of Jaffna credible on this issue? To my mind the answer is yes on both counts. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact he was founding professor of chemistry and head of the chemistry department at the University of Jaffna strongly suggests he held an established chair, which meets the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC #5: The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. (Italics mine). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination rationale is at odds with the definition of WP:NSCHOLAR in multiple important ways. The nominator writes that the article subject "Fails the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR. Specifically fails Criterium 1". The section that defines NSCHOLAR says: "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" (emphasis in the original). It is fully expected that many notable academics will not meet any number of the criteria in NSCHOLAR. Failing to meet a criterion under NSCHOLAR is not grounds for deletion; if just one of the criteria is satisfied, then the subject has presumed notability. Discounting notability because of their google scholar hits is a particularly bad misreading of WP:NSCHOLAR, because there is a caution specifically against reliance on Google Scholar in the guideline itself, at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics. In this case, with an academic who would have written mostly in offline sources, maybe not in English, before the internet age, who does not have a google scholar profile, of course google scholar will show low numbers of citations compared to contemporary academics publishing online in English. In light of that, Necrothesp's point looks correct to me. Criterion 5 specifically acknowledges that the particular practice of being a "named chair" is culturally and temporally quite specific, but the motivation for this criterion is that universities regularly have internal mechanisms for signaling which of their faculty they believe are highly notable for their academic work, so that we can capture that kind of notability on Wikipedia. The page subject clearly received numerous such acknowledgements of notability, from being the founding chair of the department and dean of the science faculty, being credited by the university and in the news as a pioneer in the department and of Sri Lankan chemistry generally, and being the subject of a named lectureship and a student award. The nominator has responded above that nearly all of these should be discounted because they are not properly independent of the article subject. The lack of independent sources would be a concern for demonstrating notability under WP:GNG, which I would agree is not met. But meeting NSCHOLAR is sufficient for presumed notability, separate and apart from GNG. Regarding simple statements of fact ("there was a lecture named after this academic"), it is perfectly acceptable to use a university's own declaration of the lecture series. Unless there is serious reason to suspect that the University of Jaffna is fabricating the lectureship, the award, the department chair position, the dean position, and so on (is there any such reason for doubt?), this is a perfectly acceptable use of a source that is not independent of the subject of the article. Even if it were a primary source published by the article subject himself, WP:PRIMARYSOURCE says that "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia", but "only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". This aren't even primary sources, so I don't see any issue with using them to make statements of fact. All of that said, !voters should ask themselves: what would a Sri Lankan chemist of the 1980s have to do to be classed as notable? Unless someone can cast serious factual doubt on the existence of this person or the University of Jaffna's credibility in describing the positions he held and the honours he was given, the subject of this article has all the traces that we associate with academic notability. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Astrophobe and Necrothesp -- the named lecture series as a notable university is enough for WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here and with two relistings without further comments, I'm closing this as No consensus. Go forth and improve articles! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hush Records

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

Lack of significant independent coverage on the entity "Hush Records" in depth such that it satisfies WP:NCORP. Though there has been some editors naming WP:NBAND #5 as the basis of recording company notability, there's no consensus supporting such application, but if it exists, linking to such discussion is encouraged. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for lack of brevity. I cannot find a way to access archives of The Oregonian beyond headlines, which is probably the most likely source of coverage. Here's some sigcov via Proquest that might not quite meet CORPDEPTH.
1. [18] Hush Records is a Portland record label known for its quiet and soothing, but artistically interesting music. The label has a showcase on Saturday at ACME. Highlights include...
2. [19] In February, Velella Velella signed with Portland's respected Hush Records, home of top-shelf indie rock artists such as Decemberists, Norfolk & Western, Kind Of Like Spitting, Laura Gibson and Corrina Repp. Hush is re-releasing V. Velella's 2005 triumph, "Bay of Biscay," with national distribution in May. It's a flexible deal ...
3. [20] One of the most intriguing is Graves, a one-man band who has just released a new CD on acclaimed Portland, Ore., label Hush Records....Graves' new CD, "To Sur With Love," is more experimental, ranging from avant-rockers closer to Tom Waits to ballads that may remind listeners of other Hush Records groups such as the Decemberists or Norfolk And Western.

I have followed this label in the past, and it has a documented influence on the Portland music scene and the broader indie music scene. Most of the documentation just happens to be in articles about artists and releases. We don't really have a standard process (other than the blunt instrument of merging) for moving otherwise-notable topics away from corp/org articles into broad concept articles that are less promotional in nature. But, the encyclopedia would have a clear gap without covering it, so in absence of keep consensus I would strongly suggest a merge to something like Music of Oregon and maybe a bit more merged also to Indie music scene or a better target if one can be found, it might even be worth starting an Indie music scene of Portland, Oregon just as an ATD. I'm hopeful that someone has access to The Oregonian archives though to bypass the difficult decisions. —siro χ o 04:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question I am just curious how a presumption can be made about the significance of coverage without having read the whole article. An extensive independent reporting and analysis on the article subject itself is the key which we can not assume by just looking at the first few lines. For the purpose of evaluating WP:MULTSOURCES, are those sources all from unrelated publishers and different authors? Graywalls (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not precisely sure what you're asking so I will give the best answers I can. First, for the 3 sources I provided, those I was able to see the article in question, and they are from three different newspapers from three different cities. Second, I cannot see any historical archives from a different news publication, The Oregonian, which I believe is likely to have more coverage of this label. Thirdly, there also is a lot more short coverage about the label in various news articles that might help with GNG but do not qualify for NORG. I hope this answers your question. —siro χ o 06:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the nominator's claim in the nomination, and as I have said elsewhere, there is no reason to ignore WP:MUSIC #5 here, and this is yet another example of a Portland-based record label being picked off. I doubt any Portland-based labels meet NCORP, but I don't think they should have to, for the good of encyclopedic coverage of music. I've already made this case in like 10 previous AfDs in the past couple weeks, and it's fatiguing. Chubbles (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just as I invited in the AfD argument, please link to well participated talk pages and RFCs that suggest there's a broad community support to apply NMUSIC #5 criterion for the purpose of evaluating record labels. I made good faith attempt to search for this and I haven't been able to locate it myself. Anyone make any argument based on personal convictions based but that doesn't support there's a community consensus in favor of that view. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did this at my talk page, at your request. Go and look at old Record Label AfDs. Sure community consensus can change. You seem to acknowledge that policy does acknowledge NMUSIC#5, and you are therefore trying to change policy at WP:N. That's fine, but please don't make the bad-faith assumption that Chubbles, a very long time music contributor and AfD participant, doesn't know what he's talking about. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 10:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am only acknowledging that some editors have been making the argument even though I find NMUSIC 5 is absolutely irrelevant to notability of record label companies. Graywalls (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete No effective sources. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS and WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 17:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP based on WP:ORGCRIT. NMUSIC5 applies to performers, not labels. I don't see any previous consensus that changes this. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Much discussion but only one editor taking a stand on what should happen with this article and I'd like to see more support before undertaking a Merge. No comments after two relistings says to me that there would be no additional participation after a third relist so that it is unnecessary. Maybe at a future time, not in the summer, more editors might be attracted to a second AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Fabulous International

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

Not meeting notability requirements and seems TOOSOON. I find one article about it[21], unsure if it's in a RS. Regardless, that's all there is for coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this ends up being deleted, we should strongly consider removing Miss Fabulous International 2022 as well Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Spiderone and Oaktree b - Considering that this is a Thailand pageant - was a search in the Thai language done before nominating or discussing this pageant? To understand why this is an issue, try searching for Tom Brady in the Konkani language. Here are the results that show up - (https://www.google.com/search?q=%E0%A4%9F%E0%A5%89%E0%A4%AE+%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%85%E0%A4%A1%E0%A5%80+%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A3%E0%A5%80+%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8). If I had only searched him in Kokani, he would not pass an AfD test! Extra consideration needs to be taken when nominating subjects that are not English language topics as issues like this seem to happen daily. KatoKungLee (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Fabulous International 2023 (which has Miss Fabulous International 2022 bundled) and Miss Fabulous International Thailand. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are plenty of sources but they are about Miss Fabulous Thailand (which is misnamed on Wikipedia) and its founder Bryan Tan.[22][23][24][25] There's definitely scope for an article, but it should probably be a single article covering the entire Mis Fabulous Franchise, if not the main Thai competition alone. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'd suggest a merge. For the moment, I recommend merging the pages for Miss Fabulous International, Miss Fabulous International Thailand, Miss Fabulous International 2023, Miss Fabulous International 2023. LingLass (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2023 (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, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Tracy

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

Non-notable performer. I can't find any album reviews or mentions of anything she's performed in. Appears PROMO. Gsearch is straight to this wiki, then her social media. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could any advocates for this article please list the WP:THREE best sources for establishing notability? MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:BASIC. Article needs some cleanup but it's not so far gone as many. Here's what I have so far, independent research:
1. Sigcov in background outside of non-independent attributed statements and quotes: (>200 words of once non-independent is filetered out) [26]
2. More Sigcov in background outside of non-independent attributed staements and quotes. (>350 words once non-independent stuff is filtered out) [27]
3. Abstract here has 150 words of sigcov, article will almost certainly have more. [28]
4. Allmusic staff album review with sigcov of artist [29]

—siro χ o 02:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SPA-created fanpage or perhaps vanity bio from early days of WP. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability. Regarding PROMO, this alone is not valid reason for deletion due to Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, if WP:NBASIC is still met. I believe it is, as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. Here is a source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
San Francisco Examiner (https://www.proquest.com/docview/270492916/D4F41F16E6BF4B8CPQ/2?accountid=196403)	Story is written by a journalist at the San Francisco Examiner based on several interviews and original reporting. The journalist draws his own conclusions and makes independent observations.	The source follows established journalistic standards and is a reliable source.	The entire article is focused on Jill Tracy.	✔ Yes
Orange County Register (https://www.ocregister.com/2023/02/14/how-jill-tracy-found-inspiration-in-the-spiritualist-retreat-of-lily-dale/)	Independent media organization	Reliable newspaper	The entire article is dedicated to Jill.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The San Francisco Examiner, Orange County Register, and AllMusic staff written bio, so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the sources mentioned by IAmHuitzilopochtli and Atlantic306. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Gordo

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

Most of the reception were filled with listicles and/or passing mentions. The Cultural impact section sources doesn't directly talking about the character. The only usable source was there was a "button mashing" article by Kotaku. Im having hard time finding SIGCOV at google news. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that two notable real-world wrestlers have commented on Eddy, going so far as to attribute their moves to him, is demonstrative of real-world notability and the character's cultural impact. The sources criticising Eddy's controls, although perhaps individually limited in depth, when taken as a whole show Eddy's impact on gaming culture as a character associated with button mashing and gimmicky gameplay. There also seems to be offline sources discussing Eddy's association with capoeira. For example, Jesper Juul discusses in Half-real: video games between real rules and fictional worlds (2005) Eddy as an example of a character that only exists in a "fictional world", but uses the "real rules" of capoeria in combat. (Disclaimer: I was unable to access that source, but the example is cited in this journal article here. Embodying Brazil: An ethnography of diasporic capoeira (Delamont, Stephens & Campos 2017) discusses how "the capoeira men we have known since 2003 are of a generation for whom it was the video game Tekken 3, which first appeared in 1997 featuring an African-Brazilian hero, Eddy Gordo" that drew them to capoeira. Unfortunately I was only able to get snippets from Google Books, though. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the strongest of Tekken characters, but the wrestling sources plus the scholarly source is worthwhile. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw since the findings of scholarly sources, I think it barely passes now. Withdrawing GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'd like to give this a definitive close but with no comments after two relistings, all we have to go on is three opinions. I don't see a consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CC Barber

AfDs for this article:

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

A lack of WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG for this beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Oregon. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete, subject does not appear to rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, [13, 14, 15, 16 - This is why I had an issue with so many articles being nominated within a short time frame. If you check CC's page, most of the links are dead or behind paywalls. I feel that this should have been mentioned in a WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG nomination as it's impossible to know what's behind dead links and paywalls. From what we know of the sources I posted and some of the sources mentioned in the other links, she was on interviewed on Portland TV about her win, she did various appearances and MC gigs, she was covered in TLC's Miss America 2010 preview, she was interviewed on 105.1 FM The Buzz and had multiple articles written about her in the dailyastorian. She's very clearly a local celebrity in Oregon. I believe there's more out there and with her winning 4 pageants, I have more reason to suspect that more coverage exists.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the coverage appears to be pretty routine and is a case of BLP1E being the winner of a statewide pageant. It isn't sustained, and as such doesn't rise up to the standards needed to keep just because sources exist. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a reason to keep any article.

Some of the sources you linked to are simply Facebook posts as well, which aren't at all reliable. Let'srun (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let'srun - The point of the facebook links are that we now know more coverage exists, which is important in a debate about WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. And to - All of the coverage appears to be pretty routine, it's really hard to rate a source when it's dead or behind a paywall, which most of the sources listed are.KatoKungLee (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Hays, Carl (June 2008). "Rosewell, Texas". The Booklist. Vol. 104, no. 19/20. p. 61. ProQuest 235631640.

[2] Green, P. (2016). Encyclopedia of Weird Westerns: Supernatural and Science Fiction Elements in Novels, Pulps, Comics, Films, Television and Games, 2d ed. McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. p. 207. ISBN 978-1-4766-6257-2. Retrieved August 8, 2023.

[3] Clement, Stephanie Jean (1994). Consciousness and the Midheaven. American Federation of Astrologers. ISBN 978-0-86690-445-2.

[4] ttps://thesquashsite.com/open-de-bretzels-2023

[5] ttps://www.psaworldtour.com/challenger-tour/open-des-bretzels-tournament-preview/

[6] ttps://www.psaworldtour.com/psa-challenger-tour/

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]