Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 06	October 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Asia Climate Partnership

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

Article has few citations, all of which are broken so information cannot be verified. Seems like it will be impossible to update as there is no recent information on this topic - there is no independent coverage of the Partnership, and the only information I can find on it was last updated in 2009. As such, I feel the article doesn't meet notability criteria, and there is no info available to update it to meet quality/accuracy criteria. OliverEastwood talk 12:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed source #2 by adding an archive link, but translating archived pages is not possible so I cannot read it. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Searching for it in Korean ("동아시아기후파트너십") shows numerous respectable independent sources covering it. It's unfortunate the article is poorly sourced though; it needs some work but I think it's a notable enough topic. (I probably won't do the work) toobigtokale (talk) 02:26, 28 October 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veho

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

While there seems to be some mention of its products in media, it doesn't appear that there is sufficient coverage to meet the WP:CORP of today. I would have PRODed this one also, but it is mentioned at Southampton F.C.#Club identity. However, I also decided against BLAR since I'm not sure this is the primary topic of this name. Besides Veho Tech which I have also nominated, there is also a Finnish car importer, fi:Veho and the French commune Vého currently disambiguated via SMALLDIFFS. Not really sure if people will find the redirect appropriate so here I am. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this stub a long while ago when they were the only company sponsoring a Premier League football team that didn't have an article. They don't really appear to have gone anywhere since, and their last set of accounts suggests they have downsized. Together with the lack of RS about the company itself (though that's actually tricky due to the existence of the US firm), I don't think they pass CORP these days. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree they don't meet WP:CORP. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 13:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yavgeniya Khatskevich

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

Played one minute of international football and then disappeared. I can't find significant coverage in any language, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. There is SCSG, which has a small amount of info about her but it's nowhere near enough for GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veho Tech

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

I've been considering a PROD, but given the article in The Information (which I did see is already in the article after my BEFORE) looks like a prima facie "maybe to yes", I've decided that it's sufficiently "potentially controversial" to merit AFD. However, none of the other sources are sufficient to be the second in the multiple required to meet SIRS. Most of them, both inside and out of the article, are the routine reprints of funding and expansion announcements that exist for almost any company that bothers issuing press releases.

It's worth noting there are two articles cited (WSJ, The Technology That’s Helping Companies Thrive Amid the Supply-Chain Chaos; Bloomberg, Couriers Snatch Toehold in Biggest Shake-Up of FedEx Era) plus BusinessInsider's Gig labor could have challenged FedEx and UPS. Now it's making them stronger. mentioning the company in relation to the broader market, however they do not appear to address the company itself in sufficient detail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be enough coverage to write an encyclopedic article per our current criteria.

I do see potential for this to be redirected to Last mile (transportation)#Last mile technology platforms, or a similar article on the intersection of gig economy and that market (the latter of which not yet written, of course, but does appear possilikely to likely a notable topic), so that first redirect would be my proposal for now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I appreciate the WP:BOLDNESS for the nominator to begin what may be a controversial nomination with understandable rationales citing guidelines, as well as provide ideas on what to do if the article cannot be kept. With said that, there is a reason this is contestable: the suggestion that a lot of the sources, like the TechCrunch and Denver Business Journal ones, are simply routine announcements that are not independent sources. I am sorry, but [1] and [2] absolutely go above and beyond simply announcing funding, and they ARE independent sources, as they are written by authors not affiliated with the company for reliable sources with no connection to it. Articles like the examples I provide are way more than mentioning a fundraiser, summarizing Veho's place in the market and plans for the future. That is significant coverage. A merge into an article about the Gig economy would not be out of the question, however.User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. To meet WP:GNG, we need two in-depth references. One has already been provided by the nominator in the form of The Information article ([3]). Per WP:BASIC, we can combine multiple partial in-depth articles to establish notability. The second reference can be pieced together using partial coverage from WSJ and Bloomberg articles already mention above. This is a major startup by any standard, having received funding from prestigious investors such as Tiger Club firm, Tiger Global Management, and a fund from SoftBank, another major investor. Lastly, this is a unicorn, and in-depth coverage for unicorns almost always exists, as demonstrated by the article already cited (with proper bylines, i.e. articles written by journalists (earned media), not press releases) from publications such as Reuters ([4]), WSJ ([5]), South Florida Business Journal ([6]), Bloomberg ([7]), Denver Business Journal ([8], [9]), TechCrunch ([10], [11]), Boston Globe ([12]), Jacksonville Business Journal ([13]), Orlando Business Journal ([14]), The Heights ([15]), Jacksonville Daily Record ([16], [17]), Hartford Business Journal ([18]), and New York Business Journal ([19]). There more than enough to write and establish the notability of this topic. Vstekrk (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BASIC is for biographical notability. As far as I'm aware, Veho is not a person. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the listed references per an earlier discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_few_AfDs_deadlocked_on_source_evaluation_question. - Indefensible (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faiza Ismailova

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

Unfortunately, I can't find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC being met. Article created due to playing less than half of one game for Kazakhstan but can't see anything that meets our notability guidelines. KFF, Olympic and Kaz Football were the best that I could find but all are just squad list mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: check the Kazakhstan women's national football team last couple of games and she is not there. I think she stopped playing since 2020. Also different search words did not yield any results that can back up even a weak keep FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:16, 7 October 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. Star Mississippi 13:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Teichman

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

Sole quality source is the Evening Standard. Nothing else located on a search, same as the talk page message left by the person who tagged this for notability earlier this year. Single source is not enough to retain the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject seems to meet WP:BASIC. In addition to what's in the article including Evening Standard, there's decent of coverage in FT including this[20], which has both an interview and secondary coverage . Lots of other short mentions of the subject in FT. If no consensus to keep, redirect to Simba Sleep which makes mention of the subject. —siro χ o 03:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even close to WP:N. I have to wonder how this got created in the first place, it must have fallen through cracks.

Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 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. Not salting as suggested because the article has only been recreated once (2nd AfD ended with no consensus). RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dueling Network

AfDs for this article:

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

This appears to be the sole reliable source about the topic. I checked the previous AfDs and they also did not present any reliable sourcing. The article appears to fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of multiple reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 21 October 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly I wasn't able to find much on this in my searches beyond what the nominator already mentioned. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable with many reliable sources. बिनोद थारू. Another reliable source: https://ygorganization.com/cd-order-filed-against-dueling-network/ and another https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/hacker-steals-6-5-million-accounts-from-yu-gi-oh-clone/ and another https://gamerant.com/yu-gi-oh-trading-card-game-ways-changed-since-1999/#rise-and-fall-of-dueling-network and another https://www.neoseeker.com/news/27662-konami-summons-the-dark-magician-for-three-new-yu-gi-oh-games-in-2016/ (passing mention) and another https://twinfinite.net/features/best-yugioh-game-in-years/ (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial mentions don't count towards notability. YGOrganization looks like a blog, with pseudonymous contributors, a request for Patreon donations, and the site running on Wordpress. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, anything from Game Rant doesn't count towards notability, and Twinfinite is an unreliable source. QuietCicada - Talk 02:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to count how many that leaves in total which is 2 or more with significant coverage. The original one and this one https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/hacker-steals-6-5-million-accounts-from-yu-gi-oh-clone/. And probably more if dig deeper (more than 1 minute I spent). बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BitDefender even says it's a blog in the URL, so it's not a reliable source per WP:BLOG. That leaves, as I said, a single reliable source. Even if we assume it is reliable, the significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail isn't there, since these are about a single event that affected the site rather than the site itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You are spreading misinformation about policy. WP:BLOG you just linked references WP:NEWSBLOGS, which reads:

"Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." बिनोद थारू (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BitDefender is not a "news organization", it is a company that makes antivirus tools. Thus, that does not apply, because the writers are not employed in a professional context by a news organization.

Accusing people of spreading misinformation is an WP:ADHOMINEM, please think twice before using such highly charged language or it will just boomerang back to you if the evidence of ill intent is not found by others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is file under the "INDUSTRY NEWS", making https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/hacker-steals-6-5-million-accounts-from-yu-gi-oh-clone/ a news article. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Joe down the street can also start up a blog where they post news. That doesn't make Joe a reliable news source.

Either way, the point is moot, because BitDefender is just quoting Vice for the entire article and admit as much. There is no new take here and it shouldn't count as a separate source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like others said, first two sources are blogs/unreliable, GameRant and Twininfinite aren't a significant coverage of the subject, NeoSeeker is literally just a name drop... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can only see the one RS linked in the nom statement – I would consider the Bitdefender article/blog/whatever linked above the same source, as Bitdefender's piece seems to be simply rereporting of the Motherboard article. Tollens (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Since this is the third time that the article has been created in good faith by different people over the course of eleven years and it's still not meeting notability, we should salt it to prevent this from happening again. QuietCicada - Talk 12:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily closed‎. Deleted under CSD G3. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiul Islam Sagor

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

This is a contested draftification. However, this article looks like a direct copy of Hridoy Islam with the names switched. As a result, the sources I can access only mention Islam, not Sagor.

Before the page creator removed the draft templates, I had tagged it as a possible conflict of interest issue, owing to the creator's username. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, I declined an A7 without checking that the sources talked about the correct person. It should probably be speedied as a hoax. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Espresso Addict! This one's an unusual situation for sure. Obviously, I'm not opposed to a CSD G3 deletion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) delete. An autobio. A hoax. A mess. Whatever this is, it's miles from notable, and needs to be nixed, the sooner the better. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) delete Sources don't mention him, looks like a hoax. Theroadislong (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do not draftify. Delete this hoax. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged this for speedy as a hoax given the above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:17, 7 October 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hilja Tavaststjerna

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

Generally, subject doesn’t pass WP:GNG, more specifically, doesn’t pass WP:NWRITER, sources fails verification, nothing to show notability. Cursory search returned nothing useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Literature, and Finland. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have added two Swedish sources that support her books. and also A source I added refers to her as the principal of the school —Patricia (Talk) 11:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indicia of passing either GNG or NAUTHOR.

Ref #1 (literaturbanken.se) is literally a single sentence.
Ref #2 (libris.kb.se) is just a search result listing
Ref #3 (libris.kb.se) is some kind of a database entry, consisting of name, DOB/DOD and a 4-word description
Ref #4 (yksityiskoulut.fi) is a passing mention, listing her in a list of rectors. I'm also unclear what makes this a reliable source.
Ref #5 (libris.kb.se) is a barebones library database entry about a book
Ref #6 (litteraturbanken.se) is an extremely brief description of a play

Absolutely none of these is useful in the least for demonstrating the subject meets either GNG or NAUTHOR. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. Seems to have been widely covered for her work in a school. We can probably combine sources for WP:BASIC here. For example, [21][22][23][24][25][26] —siro χ o 08:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These all look like extremely passing mentions, what meaningful thing is there to say about the subject based on these? Ljleppan (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo:I learned and enjoyed your careful and intelligent look. I definitely agree with you, we can at least look into this:WP:BASIC for this subject. —Patricia (Talk) 11:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried hard but I couldn't find enough that I could understand. There are some book previews as Siroxo found but unless someone can translate them, they're effectively useless. I can't figure out how to copy and paste them into a translation app. These refs may meet technically meet the notability guidelines but not the spirit if they're unusable to writers on this Wikipedia. @Siroxo, @Ljleppan and @Patricia Mannerheim, if any of you can translate or figure a way to paste this material into a translator, I am open to revisiting my "delete" - ping me.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can read Finnish natively, and know some basic Swedish, and as far as I can see and the book previews by Siroxo all are extremely passing mentions.

#1 is looks to be just a mention of "We [the Parliament of Finland] gave Hilja Tavaststjerna a loan of 1500 marks for building a kindergarden".
#2 describes how someone else (unclear who, but not Hilja) worked as a teacher in Hilja's school.
#3 is a passing mention of how the senate grants Hilja's school 2000 marks because the times were bad.
#4 is just the same text as #1.
#5 is a passing mention, basically "In 1900, the small girls' school founded by Hilja Tavaststjerna in 1879 came under the management of Helena Forsman, and the curriculum was changed so that..." and then continues talking about what that other person did.
#6 talks about how Mary Gallen-Kallela (the topic of the book) studied in a school ran by Hilja for five years, hearing her tell fairy tales and getting to use a microscope. Again, very brief.

I don't see how any this is useful for GNG purposes. Ljleppan (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ljleppan, thanks. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:32, 21 October 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!} 06:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zsolt Süle

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

Yet another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL singer notable only for participating on a reality show. See also Marius Bear, also at AFD. Pottyantós WC (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AFD Nominator Pottyantós WC has been banned for WP:DE Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - nom made by indefinitely blocked editor. BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a valid reason for keep
Very weak keep, maybe a BLP1E case, but keep since nom was made by indeffed user. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure it matters that the nom editor is banned since this person does not actually appear to be notable. He was one of 30 people who took part in a local competition and he did not win or place. He is 54 and a quick search didn't find anything about a notable career prior to sending in an application for the show. The article lacks reliable sources about everything other than the competition participation (potential redirect target Hungary in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018). The Hungarian version of the article also reads like a advertisement, which to me, indicates a lack of notability even within Hungary. Grk1011 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The status of the nominator shouldn't determine whether or not this article is Kept or Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, heading towards No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my Keep !vote. Sources are decent. BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get Shakes

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

As I wrote in my PROD which was just removed:

Aside from this review from DIY and a paragraph in a MusicOMH concert review, I found no evidence of notability.

QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a huge number, but it still has multiple sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the above, the group won an award that was televised on Channel 4. I suspect there is more coverage beyond what's easily found on Google. Chubbles (talk) 05:44, 30 September 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} 05:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 7 October 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!} 06:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nike CTR360 Maestri

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

1) Per WP:NOTADVERT this at the very least needs WP:TNT 2) Fails WP:GNG. After removing unreliable sources what was left were sources from SoccerBible.com and Nike. SoccerBible I'm not actually certain about the reliability of and Nike is obviously not independent of the subject. Most of the SoccerBible references only mention the project in passing in relation to some other subject or are mere product release announcements. The couple that do mention it more than in passing or are product announcements don't constitute in depth or broad coverage given that it's only one source. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 07:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Sports, and Football. TarnishedPath^talk 07:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new article on Nike football boots or similar, which would be a notable general topic. Giant Snowman 10:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once again, we redirect to articles, not other redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was an article - redirected - now restored. Giant Snowman 07:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think it is impossible to have an article about a product line. For instance, a car model may clearly be notable for a page, but what makes it notable is significant coverage, independent of the subject in reliable secondary sources. From what I have been able to find, this is not the case here. The sourcing primarily leads back to advertising copy and product releases and lacks independence. The creation of a football boots stub seems like a bold move to provide a WP:ATD, but I don't believe that, at this stage, even the general subject has been shown to be notable. A redirect to Nike, Inc. would be more useful at this time, if anyone feels redirect is suitable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy:, can you sign your vote please. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 30 September 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A failure to produce viable references means the WP:golden rule is not satisfied, so this fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wollo Kombolcha

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Source in article is a database record, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 05:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG due to lack of detailed football coverage found in English or Amharic. All I can find is their Facebook page and the GSA source already used. I do note that there is one Amharic source listed in the previous discussion but it's not enough on its own and the source itself doesn't really give any opportunity to expand the article into anything meaningful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 18 October 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. Editors interested in a Merge can start that process after this AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adidas Copa Mundial

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

1) Per WP:NOTADVERT this at the very least needs WP:TNT 2) Fails WP:GNG. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Sports, and Football. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a rather iconic football boot amongst many, there are multiple reviews online about the boots such as ESPNs example, which in turn is in-depth coverage. There are some news articles, such as [27] about possible discontinuation of the boot. However they continue to update it at times [28]. There are multiple sources online, @GiantSnowman: If you continue to post the same thing over and over again of no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. I will be more than happy to report this to ANI, as at times this is rather like how many have be barred from AfD. Simply voting delete or keep with lack of explanation is tiresome. Especially for an article such as this, when there are huge amount of sources online for this icon boot. Govvy (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain. Feel free to take to ANI. As I have explained elsewhere, and as others agreed with me, your respectfully shitty attitude in dealing with people who you disagree with at AFD will not win people around to your way of thinking. Giant Snowman 17:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first citation, the author runs a blog which sells the products he reviews. While it may be published by ESPN, there is a clear COI there given that ESPN are publishing his websites name in connection with the review. Your second citation, I couldn't find any editorial staff or policies for that website. TarnishedPath^talk 03:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or delete ALL brand name articles. Please see Category:Adidas, and Wikipedia:Brands. The other Adidas are no more, nor any less, advertising than this one. And it's not isolated to one brand. ~~Don't cherry-pick only select Adidias articles to delete.~~ — Maile (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66, I'm not cherry picking Adidas. Refer to the following other football boots that I nominated:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Hypervenom - Deleted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Mercurial Vapor - Deleted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Tiempo - Redirected

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Total 90 - Redirected

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Phantom Luna - Deleted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike CTR360 Maestri - Currently relisted TarnishedPath^talk 01:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I struck through my comment about cherry picking. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66, no worries. Enjoy your day or night. TarnishedPath^talk 02:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Govvy: I find nothing objectionable about @GiantSnowman:’s comment. His comment about pinging is a reasonable alternative to following multiple AfDs, comment-by-comment, after leaving his own comment. I suspect an ANI discussion would ultimately reach the same conclusion, perhaps after some contentious, gratuitous drive-by comments from the peanut gallery. Either or both or neither of you might get sanctioned - it’s a crap shoot. ANI is not worth it, trust me.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had edited the article to remove unreliable sources, however an editor has seen fit to restore the unreliable sources because they think it appropriate to include blogs, websites with no locatable editorial policies and sources which don't back up the claims made in articles because "they are not black listed". After removal of unreliable sources there were only two sources left in the article. One of the sources was about California banning kangaroo skinned boots and barely mentions the product. The other is about the product being offered in white. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Adidas Copa Mundial, Adidas Nemeziz, Adidas Predator, and AdiPure into single article on Adidas football boots, eliminating everything that is either unsourced or sourced to non-independent sources (which is quite a bit of it). BD2412 T 01:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An even split between keep, merge, and delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:54, 22 October 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 Scotch Game. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haxo Gambit

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

Non-notable "internet name" for a chess opening not used in reliable sources. It's simply the Scotch Gambit to chess players. See Talk:Scotch Game for further information. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scotch Game. Not entirely sure why we need an AfD when there was already a merger discussion. Even if the term is a recent meme, as long as it's a plausible search term a redirect is appropriate. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scotch Game. Not a notable enough term for this chess opening, as evident by its complete lack of sourcing. Redirect to the suggested target as a WP:ATD. User:Let'srun 02:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pawnkingthree. Double sharp (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This was basically what I was proposing in the merger discussion, but if it's decided in AFD, so be it :) -- Sohom (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Taiwan independence sentiment

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTESSAY Amigao (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previously deleted last week at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Taiwan independence sentiment. WP:G4? Curbon7 (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previously deleted article was a one paragraph stub. This is not a G4 situation, let us consider the present article on its merits. —Kusma (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Curbon7 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is based on an unattributed translation of zh:反台獨情緒. I think it is a worthy topic, but a terrible article. The original Chinese article is mostly a quote farm, and the present version is worse. Translating zh:台獨派, "Taiwan independence faction" as "pro-democracy people" is clearly incorrect, for a start. I think this requires WP:TNT to have any chance at a decent coverage of the topic. Delete or stubify. —Kusma (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kusma, this is a noteworthy topic, but article within the realms of TNT, possible redirect to Taiwan independence movement#Opposition to independence, but the title is grammatically ambiguous, Opposition to Taiwan independence would be best. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This is a student assignment (I am the instructor). The student jumped the gun by publishing the draft in the mainspace before asking me for a detailed feedback. This is not read for mainspace, although I think it is a notable topic (otherrwise I would not approve it); it is broader than the linkted to at Taiwan independence movement#Opposition to independence, as it concerns the anti-Taiwanese sentiment in Mainland China (see also GScholar query). I'd ask for this to be moved back to draft. Hopefully by the time class is finished in December, this will be ready for mainspace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous commenters: @Kusma @Goldsztajn. Also, @Curbon7 - this is semi-relevant, as I see the old deleted article was an early draft by my student. Apologies for not noticing it earlier, I provide students with detailed feedback on my talk page, but if they do not request feedback, I fear some stuff can be missed even through I try watchlist their discussion pages, etc. If anyone wants to follow/monitor more activity of my students (I'd cetainly appreciate it), the course page is here. (Note the students are all ESLs). PPS. Please see my prior feedback to the student on this from June; that includes among others my comment on the "pro-democracy people". My current feedback is here. Feel free to leave messages on my talk pages or on student talk pages with additional feedback. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only comment on the title; whether it concerns mainland views and/or those on the island, "Anti-Taiwan independence sentiment" remains grammatically ambiguous. Opposition to Taiwan independence is grammatically unambiguous and does not exclude opinion on the basis of geographic location. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, this term does not seem to exist in academic discourse. Anti-Taiwan sentiment, pararelling anti-Chinese sentiment, is a bit better, used by a few sources. but is not very popular, either. opposition to Taiwan independence is indeed more popular, and I'd support renaming this thus. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind draftifying, but it does need serious work. —Kusma (talk) 08:22, 12 October 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 06:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brie Gabrielle

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG as an actor and beauty pageant contestant due to a lack of independent secondary coverage. Let'srun (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google search turned up more than enough coverage in sources to pass WP:NACTOR: [29] [30] [31] [32] —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:38, 15 October 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!} 07:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Yosemite League

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

This league lacks the WP:SIGCOV needed for a standalone article. No issues here for redirecting this to CIF Central Section. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Less than a month and a half ago, this NOM was involved in a class discussion for deletion including this league. Until they are stopped from this kind of antagonization, I expect they will continue to attack this class of article, high school sports leagues. As I said previously, there must be WP:SIGCOV of all local high school sports leagues. No local media could survive while ignoring the local sports played by the local high schools. Prove me wrong, maybe you can find one league without this kind of coverage (but don't claim success just because you did it behind my back). This league is not the exception. Previously I added one local newspaper covering this league. That did not appease this NOM's attack. I have now added another ten, including 3 newspapers and a television station along with sports-specific media, all covering this league. There is plenty more where that came from on the first page of Google. Neglecting to look for sources before making a nomination for deletion, even muted as Merge, is a violation of WP:BEFORE. That means look first. If the article is missing some significant coverage, use your editing skills to FIX IT before bothering the entire community to needlessly discuss deleting an article.Trackinfo (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:JN are not legitimate keep arguments. Routine local coverage doesn't help this subject qualify for WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be extensive coverage of this league in local media - Newspapers.com brings up 25,000 matches for "West Yosemite League" and its games regularly receive significant coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a suitable keep argument. We need WP:SIGCOV, and routine game reports from local outlets do not suffice to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, being extensively covered on a regular basis is what makes for a notable league; that's why WP:NBASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"inclusion is routine, and can not be taken as evidence of notability". Let'srun (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, inclusion in what? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if you are arguing for Keeping this article, it would be helpful if you located additional sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Local coverage is beyond routine game coverage, offering examinations of the various sports leagues under this umbrella as a whole. Here are a few examples, but as was mentioned above, there are thousands of hits in local coverage for this, many of them beyond routine game coverage.
- There's annual sigcov of football league eg: [33][34]
- There's coverage of league tournaments and sports seasons, eg [35][36]

Also, note that there are at least two local papers covering this league.

—siro χ o 08:52, 14 October 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. Star Mississippi 17:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi

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

This person is not the actual subject of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources: he fails WP:GNG. None of the claims are particularly noteworthy, and none have ample third-party coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 00:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be a well-cited article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia:[37]. Thriley (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article in Ukrainian is largely unsourced. Ostalgia (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire. Unsourced article waxing lyrical about an oligarch, looks like a PR release, probably paid editing to boot. Found it quite shocking when I first saw it. Ostalgia (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article from the Kyiv Post is a nice summary that could be used to build out the article: [38]. Thriley (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly an interview - as far as secondary sources go this is as primary as it gets. I do not think this is acceptable for a BLP. Ostalgia (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in the following sources:

Rachkevych, Mark (2015-09-19). "Kharkiv's Richest Man Sounds Off - Sep. 19, 2015". Kyiv Post. Retrieved 2023-09-30.
"Олександр Ярославський: Біографія, досьє, фото Олександр Ярославський". forbes.ua (in Ukrainian). 2022-12-27. Retrieved 2023-09-30.
"Олександр Ярославський, бізнесмен, власник і президент групи DCH, входить до списку найбагатших українців". dumka.media (in Russian). Retrieved 2023-09-30.

Two significant secondary-source profiles in Ukrainian and one in English is more than enough to establish notability -- we don't even have to consider news coverage, which is prolific and ongoing as can be seen from the sources in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Jfire (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 14 October 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. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navigator (1986 Omega Tribe album)

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

The page was previously deleted in 2020 for having no importance and later PRODed by user Amkgp in 2020 for the same reason before user Atlantic306 removed it for being “independently notable as the album charted on a national chart”.

I went back to look at this article as I was rewriting and splitting the main pages to determine if they should stay, and after looking I couldn’t find much (or any) reliable sources for the albums and most singles. The redirect for this page was reverted by Atlantic306 again for the same reasoning as before. I reasoned that even though it did chart high, there still wasn’t much reliable sourcing to make it pass WP:GNG and just because it charted high did not make it notable when it’s the only thing that I could find.

The only things I could really find was an announcement for this and another album being remastered (which only has a bit of text before giving the track list), the Oricon/Billboard chartings in the article, and articles that only mention it as part of writing of the whole career of the band (like the OtaQuest reference in the article). reppop^talk 00:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I would like to put my vote to redirect to Carlos Toshiki & Omega Tribe, as I had did prior to being reverted. reppop^talk 00:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Skynxnex (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NALBUM#2 by charting at #2 on the Oricon Albums Chart. —siro χ o 04:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Person who contested prod is correct. Charting establishes notability. Notability can be established by either GNG or specific criteria; meeting both is not required. Bensci54 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful it additional sources could be brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band article. Chart positions definitely contribute to a band's notability, and I get pissed whenever an AFD commenter pulls the "Chart positions do not contribute to notability" comment when a song or album has like 10 of them. However, there is only one chart position. We still have to write a full article at the end of the day, and a chart position alone just does not give you enough. In all fairness, contemporaneous coverage about Japanese music in the 1980s is REALLY tough to find if your only source to everything was on the Internet and (probably) if you lived in the Western world. However, if what is on the article is all we have, the band article can easily summarize it. Additionaly, you could just list the Oricon peak in the discography section. The amount of content you could write is just too little to make an article on its own. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or redirect to band article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. We have WP:SNGs for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, with respect, nominating for deletion a second place charting, 20th most sold album of the year just to make a point about SNGs vs. GNG debate is a gigantic wastle of time. If we were talking about a 2010s American album that ranked 40th in the gospel airplay chart maybe the nominator would have had a point, but for a Japanese band of the 1980s it is perfectly perfectly understandable why sourcing is difficult to find, but almost certainly exists. Cavarrone 07:59, 24 October 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 02:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arghavan Salles

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

Self promotional page, non-notable person Bumblebumbum (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, Iran, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Profiles by American Womens Medical Association and Stanford, and the Time article (not specifically about her, but significant) should establish notability. She has an admirable publication record and has written for general media (e.g. the USA Today editorial). All of these are already cited in the article. Yes, the article tends toward the promotional and there are too many citations to social media, but these issues can be cleaned up without deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many valid references establish notability. Also of note: the nominator has no contributions other than this AfD. See Bumblebumbum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch re: the nominator. Something seemed fishy about this nomination and a likely SPA fits the bill. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Her leadership as a Director for the American Womens Medical Association board is at the national level, she has significant coverage in many secondary news sources (across many years), many publications, and her visibility and importance regarding the COVID-19 pandemic has been broadly covered. Agree with above that the nomination seems a little targeted and unsure why the user no longer exists on Wikipedia. Microglia145 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: my strong first instinct was to vote Keep, but I'm not sure I can see what notability guideline the subject meets. Seems to be a way off WP:NACADEMIC (perhaps WP:TOOSOON?) and I don't see enough secondary sources to pass WP:GNG: the Time and USA Today profiles mentioned above were written by her, the Stanford profile is specifically alumni coverage, which doesn't really clear the bar, and I don't really see much in the way of sources that give WP:SIGCOV and can be called completely independent of her. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak delete~~. SPA aside, the article as it stands relies too much on non-independent sources, comes across as somewhat promotional, and sports a CV to boot. But I don't want to overcorrect. While GNG is hard to put together, and ACADEMIC seems unmet, WP:BASIC may still be met if we use [39] and [40] as a foundation. If we had any further independent sources with SIGCOV, I could be convinced to keep. —siroχo 09:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I think NYT from below gets us to WP:BASIC, tho article still needs some work. —siro χ o 09:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the two news stories listed by User:Siroxo, I added items from Proquest in which she talks about the US response to COVID and the founding of 500 Women in Medicine, a 2019 news article that talked about her work on gender bias [41], and a 2021 NYTimes article about medical careers and fertility that includes a section on her [42]. Collectively this sums up to WP:BASIC, though the excessive Twitter references should be trimmed out. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This entire article reads as a vanity article, and a CV. As far as CVs go, it is mildly impressive, but nothing out of the ordinary in medicine. Her top claim to notability - being one of the many current directors of AMWA, is certainly not enough. (Furthermore, there are 17 other members of the current board, and she is not on the executive committee, simply a board member: https://www.amwa-doc.org/about-amwa/leadership/). Additionally, while every academic physician's job is to publish, the subject does not come close to meeting criteria for WP:NACADEMIC either. 192.104.139.5 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that Salles meets WP:NACADEMIC; She meets our criteria for WP:BASIC because she has received coverage in multiple, published secondary sources that are independent of each other and her. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator is evidently using this account just for AFD. They have no contributions other than this AfD which is suspicious. That aside, the article has some sources online. --Tumbuka Arch^★_★^★ 11:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted above, tidying up was needed. Rather than leaving this to another editor, I removed the statements sourced to Twitter. I also removed any statements that I could not verify. DaffodilOcean (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator conflict-of-interest aside, I'm not seeing anything here to meet academic notability nor significant coverage. The list of personal publications is nothing special. Furthermore, the external coverage subject has received is not on a high level either. The article as it stands discusses subject's own education and personal interests, which are adequately sourced, rather than doing anything to establish their actual significance. Also, as stated above, many of these sources were contributed to by the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.197.242 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:SNOW and because the author themselves has requested deletion of the article, which would typically fall under WP:G7. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines diarrhea incident

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

This article breaches WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Yes, there are lots of references, but in the 24-hour news cycle, media picks up anything to fill space. The publication of this event is no more than titillation and shock value. It is tabloid trivia. Wikipedia is better than that. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Transportation. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom rationale. WP:NSUSTAINED certainly applies here as well. User:Let'srun 01:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who. ----ing. Cares. WP:NOTFB. WP:NOTGOSSIP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails NOTNEWS as-is. It might be salvageable if there was also controversy (eg. court case), or social commentary about a larger issue, something to move it out of the realm of news-of-the-day. -- GreenC 04:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Busition said in Special:Diff/1178883240/1178950382 it was a "viral incident/notable meme" but the article does not show that. A meme is not the same thing as a news story. If it was a meme we might see notable parody, news stories that discuss it in the context of a meme, enduring coverage and discussion. BTW I think given (or despite) the material Bustition had to work with, it's cleanly formatted and well researched. -- GreenC 04:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make a pretty good point. Most of the sources I encountered were either written by the same person or were just non-reliable (e.g. Daily Mail). I wrote this article mainly because I thought it was notable enough due to how very references I was able to find. Now I know very well that is not the case. I feel like it should've rather been a mere mention in an article rather than a stand alone page by itself. Busition (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright it's hard to tell how things will end up, what sources will be available how it will look, you took a chance without ill intent. No harm. The system is working well. -- GreenC 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not an encyclopedic topic with WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTFB, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. FatCat96 (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS WilsonP NYC (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Partofthemachine (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Very clearly NOTNEWS. Conyo14 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but would be fine on Wikinews. Is there a way to move articles there? - Indefensible (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The site is miserable. In the past 7 days there have two legitimate new articles created. And about 20 hoaxes, nonsense and spam pages. -- GreenC 18:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But like what GreenC said, most of WikiNews is misinformation, which also really brings up the question of how much moderation is there on that site. Busition (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia gets thousands of hoaxes/spam/nonsense too. And it deletes (almost) all of them. Wikinews is probably the same. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is already stale on Wikinews, which only accepts articles about events in the past week or so. See User:Tom Morris/Don't transwiki to Wikinews, thanks * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. But curious if there is a real policy behind that essay. - Indefensible (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
n:Wikinews:Freshness? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I might explore Wikinews a bit more and just drafted a news version of the article on today's Palestinian attack. - Indefensible (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the inclusion criteria listed under WP:NEVENT. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am sorry but I have given up the strength to care about this article anymore. In retrospect, I feel like this shouldn't have been a standalone page. I just want this to be deleted and I am sorry if this message appears rude. I'm sorry and good day to everyone. Busition (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we request a speedy Delete per G7? Conyo14 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. TH1980 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find this instructive to compare with the similar United Airlines Flight 976, which I created almost three years ago for that event's 25th anniversary. Even at this time in 1995, it would have been notable in a way this has not ... we knew who the perp was and that he was an investment banker, that a head of state had been on the plane and thus it could not be diverted for security reasons, and of course that the perp had at one point decided to perch on the back of a drinks cart, drop trou and crap away. By comparison we know almost nothing about this, nothing that makes it notable. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 9 October 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 Paintball marker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paintball pistol

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

I couldn't find much outside of sales pages about this topic. This is a subtype of equipment, and the page that covers the larger topic (paintball markers) is where any information here should be merged to. Though this page appears to be only wp:or Malibu Sapphire (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Toys, and Sports. Malibu Sapphire (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My gut tells me this should be notable, but the article does not cite any sources, and my BEFORE in GScholar just gave me a few passing mentions. Uh-uh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Light merge to Paintball marker. Currently unreferenced, does not seem to be independently notable. Here's the best I've found, some secondary coverage of case law [43] —siro χ o 04:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to paintball marker. No evidence that a pistol is notable enough for a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a higher paintball page, this does not need its own article. GraziePrego (talk) 07:38, 8 October 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!} 05:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Leppien

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

Seems to be WP:TOOSOON for an article at the moment. I am unable to find sufficient coverage from independent sources to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Does look to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, not seeing enough currently for a WP:GNG pass here at the moment. Given there's no suitable redirect here, reluctant delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 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!} 00:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Devi Elangbam

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

Priya Devi Elangbam

This Indian sepak takraw player does not satisfy sports notability or general notability. The article states that her team (the Indian national team) won a bronze medal at the 2022 Asian Games. There does not appear to be any special notability guideline for regional games such as the 2022 Asian games. A review of the references shows that they say that her team won the bronze medal, and that only one of them has a passing mention of the names of the players.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	hangzhou2022.cn	Record of a match, states that the match took place. Does not name the subject.	Yes	No. Not even a passing mention by name.	Yes ?	No
2	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	States that the team won the bronze medal. Does name the subject in passing.	Yes	No, passing mention.	?	Yes
3	olympics.com	States that the team won the bronze medal. Does not name the subject.	Yes	No, passing mention.	Yes	No

Neither the article nor the references provide significant coverage. This article was created in article space, and then moved to draft space; then this copy was created again in article space, so that this is a contested draftification. Since there already is a draft, this article can be deleted, and the draft should not be accepted, at least not without expansion to provide significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 08:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nominator Worldiswide (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a comment opposing deletion at Draft talk:Priya Devi Elangbam#Passes notablity criteria (which may apply to the similar Draft:Priya Devi Elangbam). Certes (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RDB Consulting

AfDs for this article:

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

An article by a new editor about an IT consultancy firm on which a previous instance was deleted at AfD 11 years ago. Several sources in the present instance date from 2011-12 and may have been in the previously considered instance. These and more recent sources are predominantly announcement-based: funding, award sponsorship, corporate partnership, etc., all of which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. If anything, WP:NCORP has become more stringent since the previous iteration, and I am seeing nothing to suggest the previous decision on non-notability should be set aside. AllyD (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and South Africa. AllyD (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of passing mentions in PR-based sources or newswires, but no in-depth coverage indicating genuine notability that I can find in reliable sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Mooonswimmer 13:41, 20 October 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.