Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 10	January 12 >

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 delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar Bandhu

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

A news website launched 28 days ago & created by a sock. Anyway, i don't see/find any WP:SIGCOV for which it became notable in just 1 month. Fails WP:GNG, WP:WEBSITE. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, Websites, and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find a company listing on Crunchbase and a few PR mentions of it, most hits are in Bihar the place, not about this network. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm asking for keep because Bihar Bandhu is the first weekly newspaper of Bihar. It's revived as Biharbandhu.in. MistiMeow (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC) — MistiMeow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Way WP:TOOSOON for an article. - Aoidh (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Website launched less than a month a case of WP:TOOSOON Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Above arguments make the appropriate case. Woefully insufficient coverage for inclusion.MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:04, 18 January 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. Consensus is clear, but let me just add, for the benefit of the IP (if it really is the article subject), please know this is not an artistic judgement of the quality of your work, but an assessment of notability based on Wikipedia policy. It's also not permanent; in the event there's significant coverage in independent, reliable sources establishing notability in the future, the article can be remade. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Schwert

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

I have found very few actual Reliable Sources that mention this individual. They are all biographies that can be added by the individual or social media pages. Based on the article he has only been involved in a handful of "notable" films, and for those he was minor players in the scheme of things, such as the assistant location manager. VViking_TalkEdits 20:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete

moved from talk page

The person in the article, John Schwert, asked me to make some edits to his page. Unfortunately, I am new to this Wikipedia editing, and made some errors with adding links. I have permission from John Schwert to be editing, but please don't delete his page because of my mistakes. Srqflorida (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Viewmont Viking - this is John Schwert, thanks for your feedback!

I feel that my track-record of working in film, tv, and commercials for nearly 20 years, writing/directing/producing films, tv, and commercials - in addition to the locations work that I've done along the way that you mentioned, winning film festivals and awards along the way, is sufficient enough to have a Wikipedia listing, and I welcome you to explore my IMDB page, as well as a feature film that I just produced with Aaron Eckhart, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and Connor Paolo, entitled Ambush that will be in theaters next month (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkVEoypYKxg). My web designer Sue was updating my Wikipedia page and I think we were both confused as to what links were/weren't allowed on the page, but now we understand things a bit better and we hope that you reconsider your position on my Wikipedia status.

Thanks again, all my best!

John Schwert (john [at] 4wproductions.com/704-604-2947) 2603:6080:3302:1166:5157:E066:6D76:E836 (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Delete - I was canvassed on my talk page too !vote keep here. I can't find anything to show a passing of any of the 4 points of WP:CREATIVE and certainly nothing towards WP:GNG. I can only find self-published sources like WP:IMDB that address him in depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, following up from what I posted just above here - here's multiple references to myself in relation to the films I've written, directed, and produced, and I've had a Wikipedia page for ten years, as mentioned above, my web designer was just updating some information:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18649992

https://variety.com/2005/film/reviews/among-brothers-1200525010/

https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2005/04/11/story4.html

https://m.clclt.com/charlotte/brothers-in-arms/Content?oid=2355893&storyPage=2

https://filmthreat.com/uncategorized/among-brothers/

https://www.charlottemagazine.com/still-reeling/

Thanks again!

John Schwert. 2603:6080:3302:1166:35D2:8BA5:7E5A:7ACC (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:AUTO. Merely because someone is the director, producer, or actor in a film, it does not make them notable. Producers and behind-the-scenes staff are especially common and, to be blunt, run of the mill. Part of that is, that not all films are notable, and none of this person's films are notable because of him. Being interviewed one or twice about a film does not make the creator of the film notable; there must be substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Even if you are new to editing Wikipedia, everyone who was born in the 20th century has at least used or read Wikipedia and after 22 years, knows or should know the gist of what Wikipedia constitutes and that it is a charity. Ignorance of the long-standing reality of one of the most popular websites in the world does not excuse disobeying its rules or its longstanding mores and consensus about how we include content. Also, even if one is a creative person, you are not automatically included on Wikipedia. As a private charity, we have the right to exclude anyone from our services; we are not a free web host. As a private entity, we are not subject to the First Amendment. Nobody would expect to barge into a meeting of the ASPCA and demand that it surrender a puppy to them. Film producers and associated staff are dime a dozen. You have to do more than the average director, professor or scholar. Finally, I am strongly opposed to autobiographies on Wikipedia. In 2007, that could have been excused, but in 2022, it's untenable to try to sneak in a social media page masquerading as an encyclopedia article. To be plain, it's theft of our services. We have deleted older articles merely because they were paid for or autobiographies. There is no statute of limitation of action for deleting an article. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback - I appreciate your words. I'm hoping that you deem my Wiki listing from 2007 as notable enough to allow me to keep it and even update it - which is what we were trying to do the past couple weeks. I've pasted above mainstream, notable articles from major publications (Variety, Biz Journals, Film Threat) along with a link to the Dateline NBC special that focused exclusively on my film Among Brothers that I wrote, directed, and produced, in conjunction with In/Significant Others, another film that I wrote, directed, and produced, both of which have won multiple film festivals (that have Wiki listings) and awards, and I have Ambush, a film that I produced for Paramount, coming out February 24, 2023 - again, here is the link to that trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkVEoypYKxg). I've realized and now clearly understand how/why linking to social media and/or other sites isn't appropriate for Wikipedia and apologies for the ignorance on my part.

Thanks again for the words and feedback.

John Schwert. 2603:6080:3302:1166:B052:92A2:F9A7:FC61 (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent comment from Bearian. I agree wholeheartedly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with delete - the most notable films on the list are not very notable in the first place, and the films on the list where the subject had a senior role are not especially notable. Nwhyte (talk) 23:04, 18 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian (comics)

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

I ran into this one when participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny-Farthing Press, as it was suggested that article could be redirected here. However, actually looking into this article, I don't believe this comic is notable itself. The only reviews included are all from the same defunct website, which per the WP:GNG, would only count as a single source for establishing notability. And when I performed various searches, I found pretty much no coverage in reliable sources regarding the series. The most I found were very brief mentions in lists of things that Len Wein had worked on. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is just a catalogue entry, notability is not show, just the existence of the topic. Ping me if sources showing notability are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Mooonswimmer 14:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mooonswimmer I appreciate your support, but do check WP:KEEPER. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, WP:GNG specifies it needs multiple reliable sources, which this doesn't have. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing fails the criteria for establishing notability as per nom. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:05, 17 January 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. This consensus has be muddied by the sock farm which targeted this discussion, but there is a clear delete consensus reached by uninvolved editors and this consensus is in keeping with the consensus reached at similar AfDs over a number of years. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newgen Software Tech

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

While this has lots of sources, it does not appear to have overall context or explanations. Being on the stock market does not inherently make one notable. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 18:31, 4 January 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 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: This AfD was filed by a suspected sock campaign, which has voted "keep" here. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darshak.parmar. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:48, 15 January 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}}.

Keep There are sufficient sources to establish that this company meets WP:NCORP. Also added more information (context and did some explanation) but yes there's more contributions needed on the page. but i might it shouldn't be deleted as it is listed on BSE and NSE (stock market) and having more reliable sources.:Hayraan Aashna (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Clerk note: Blocked suspected sock of Darshak.parmar and confirmed sock of Munshi Talab. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Although the company gets a fair amount of coverage, the page creator should give some time to improve it to show why the company is notable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep Theis passes WP:NCORP, It shouldn't be deleted as listed on the BSE, and NSE is a credible assertion of importance Munshi Talab (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Clerk note: Blocked suspected sock of Darshak.parmar and confirmed to Hayraan Aashna. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Allow the creators time to improve the article. Darshak Parmar (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Clerk note: Suspected sock master, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darshak.parmar. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is well-sourced, reliable, and exudes notability. JRed176 (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Clerk note: Suspected sock of Darshak.parmar. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to a lack of WP:CORPDEPTH in multiple independent and reliable sources, per WP:NCORP. An online search find press releases and trivial coverage that often appears based on press releases. This article appears to be WP:PROMO and the encyclopedia should be protected from it. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: The closing administrator may find this SPI interesting... firefly ( t · c ) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to list previous AFDs but according to info at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newgen Software (2nd nomination), this is the 7th AFD on this company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Clear evidence of socking in this AfD, plus the six previous AfDs, as noted by Liz. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:56, 13 January 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 NCT (group). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Suh

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

Doesn't meet WP:BANDMEMBER criteria. Poirot09 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Poirot09 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the other band members have Wikipedia pages. What separates this person from them regarding notability? JRed176 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has no individual notability - either the start of solo music career, acting, or otherwise. Notability isn't inherited from the group. Evaders99 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to group - as I stated above, he has no individual notability. No start of a solo music career, acting, or otherwise.Evaders99 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Korea and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NCT (group) or another good target. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 17 January 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!} 19:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley (film)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "deprod; may be notable; take to AfD" DonaldD23 talk to me 20:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, France, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep:I would like to know the budget of the film and how it performed before it is deleted. Not sure if anyone is willing to research that or if the info exists. If it doesn't it would make a strong case for deletion especially if no additional sources confirming notability can be found. JRed176 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is the budget relevant to whether WP:GNG or WP:NFILM is passed? VickKiang (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reviews at all found in Rotten Tomatoes that we could use to link back to RS. No mentions of any kind for the film, only hits on Ashley Judd films. Has the longest plot summary I've seen here in a while, if it is kept, badly needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I suspect this is one of those indie films that is too low-profile to be notable enough for an article. I reserve the right to change my mind, but as of right now this doesn't pass WP:NFILM as the article has almost no sourcing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:49, 13 January 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!} 19:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Jackson (model)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Jamaica. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think she's notable here, I get confirmation that she was on the show. Most hits for this name are for a VP at Apple talking about their company. The model being discussed appears to be a working model, nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep: Additional sources should be sought for, for a time that is before a final decision is made. JRed176 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE Beccaynr (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's what the AfD process is for. I can't find any. Do you have some you can provide? Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 12 January 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!} 19:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler family of Ohio

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

I do not believe that the family is notable enough to warrant a separate article. The user who created the article reverted my proposed idea of deleting the article on the page with the reason, “The two news article sources in the article and some others and enough for a WP:GNG pass”. I do not believe that two news articles about a family means that the family needs an article. The family is briefly mentioned on the Hitler (name) article as being a family with the surname Hitler that is not related to Adolf Hitler. What does everyone think?--Abdul Akter (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The family is not notable or related to Adolf Hitler. JRed176 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Struck !vote of sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, I think notability could be argued if the family lived post WW2, but that isn't the case and just seems to a generic family from Ohio with a notable last name. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no relation to Adolf, it's just another immigrant family to America with an unfortunate last name. I'm sure they're a fine bunch of folks from Ohio, I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no relationship to Adolf Hitler. No clear indication of passing GNG. Sarrail talk 23:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete I can't even believe this was ever an article in the first place. Estar8806 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that this was created, and the family made it into a couple of local newspapers, because someone thought that the unfortunate naming coincidence was interesting or amusing. I don't find it so, but people differ. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - borderline notability, and not sure if it makes it over the bar. There is this, this, this brief mention, Jacob's obit (which I only include since it appeared in several papers, but it's so short, it wouldn't count for notability for the individual, then there's Gay's obit, which contrary to the info in the current article, he never changed his name, and never moved away. Then there is this about his estate, and Mabel's (Gay's wife) obit. Definitely not enough for any one of them to be individually notable, but thought I'd throw these out there to add to the discussion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A subject that's not obviously less notable (or, if it mattered, less interesting) than are the various "noble houses" of European republics that, however improbably, get solemnly written up for en:Wikipedia articles. (And yes, I'm aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The family is mentioned in the Circleville, Ohio article. There are streets named after them so they seem somewhat notable locally, particularly Nelson. On the surface, that's as far as it goes.

However, the placement of this source in the article [1] evokes a wider issue that hasn't been developed. Rupples (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A shared name but no relation is not notable in itself. TH1980 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reviewed this for DYK, and I was not convinced that this meets our standards of notability. The additional sources listed above do not change that assessment. TompaDompa (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here to establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. I just can't see how this family meets our notability standards. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 17 January 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!} 20:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After Hours Press

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

Non-notable publisher. Mooonswimmer 18:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources given and possibly fails WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:59, 16 January 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!} 19:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of Cardiff Council by seniority

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

This is a list of local politicians ranked by seniority (tellingly, at the time of writing, it has not been updated since the most recent elections in May 2022). The politicians in the list largely fail WP:NPOL, and while established sources (i.e., the council website) do attest to their membership of Cardiff Council, thus meeting WP:LISTPEOPLE, this list of names is also provided by 2022 Cardiff Council election#Ward results, and I fail to see any reason why local politicians should have a separate listing by 'seniority' as well as by alphabetical order of the wards in which they were elected. In summary, I propose that this list is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. (Even if it is, the burden of updating it after changes in council membership is not justified for any usefulness, as evidenced also by there having been no update since the last election eight months ago.) _MB190417_ (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. _MB190417_ (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _MB190417_ (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _MB190417_ (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely for the reasons given by the nominator ...though I'm not aware of any changes in seniority since the May 2022 election. The original author has been blocked, I believe, so the chances of this being kept up to date are slim. I did consider this list to be a bit 'niche' when I cam across it, I'm not aware of any other independent source that takes an interest in the seniority of Cardiff county councillors. I'm not aware of any similar articles listing elected representatives at this level of local government. Time for it to go I'm afraid. Sionk (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, otherwise a puerile & poorly-sourced ranking list in the same vein could be made and published on Wikipedia with impunity. JRed176 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this list is neither puerile or poorly-sourced, Wikipedia doesn't work on precedent, and the deletion of one page does not prevent the creation of a different one (even with the same title, absent active action) whether this list is kept or deleted will have no impact on whether something that is both of those things would be created and would have no impact on whether it would be deleted if it was created. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete who seriously cares enough about local politicians by seniority enough to read this, leg alone maintain this? Dronebogus (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:NLIST. Of very limited value for an encyclopedia. LibStar (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see zero reason for something like this to exist, the two comments preceding mine make the point fairly well. WesSirius (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibSTar and Sionk. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ranking by seniority is not needed for an encyclopedia, especially for local politicians. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NLIST, as I can't find significant coverage of the seniority of the Cardiff Council members. I'm also not able to find any sort of formal seniority system that exists within the Cardiff Council. While the article is verifiable, its topic appears to be WP:OR. For these reasons, the list should be deleted [er WP:DEL-REASON#6 as being solely original research and WP:DEL-REASON#8 for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Compare: Seniority in the United States Senate. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Of course Wikipedia works by precedent: see WP:OUTCOMES and WP:CCC. An argument otherwise can't be taken seriously. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 17 January 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) P1221 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Plancke

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

The subject seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The subject is found mainly in statistic websites (like this one and this one); I wasn't able to find any news covering the subject. In addition, the page is orphan and linked only to two sandboxes. P1221 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, American football, and Canada. P1221 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 32 games in the CFL, a league formerly in NGRIDIRON, and does seem to have received SIGCOV in the news – see for example [2] [3] [4]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is why the per-neutered NSPORTS was useful: these individuals generally do have SIGCOV, just not readily accessible online. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep passes WP:GNG and other notability standards. Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources given above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented by User:BeanieFan11 making it a clear pass of GNG. Frank Anchor 19:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's a stub and needs development. Let's see where that leads JRed176 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Muboshgu and Paul McDonald. Rlendog (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment Thank you very much for all the contributions and for pointing me out to sources I wasn't able to locate. I'm going to withdraw this nomination. P1221 (talk) 08:55, 13 January 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 E-commerce in Bangladesh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Online shopping in Bangladesh

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

This is not functionally distinguishable from E-commerce in Bangladesh. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, Asia, and Bangladesh. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per norm – Mehedi Abedin 18:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom JRed176 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with reasoning given in nomination Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:03, 14 January 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!} 19:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penny-Farthing Press

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

Non-notable publishing company. Redirect to Victorian (comics). Mooonswimmer 15:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is well established. Furthermore, the proposed redirect makes no sense whatsoever. Splunction (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. MER-C 04:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's fine. jengod (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per noms suggestion, merge material into Victorian (comics).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to follow the nominator's suggestion of redirecting to Victorian (comics), as the publisher's seemingly only notable work. However, after having actually looked into that comic, I don't think that comic is notable itself, and should probably be sent to AFD itself. Rorshacma (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep There's a Google presence for them and perhaps more sources could be added. Its stub status doesn't mean it is not notable. JRed176 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally not a valid argument for keeping on its own, its the existence of WP:SIGCOV that appears in reliable sources that demonstrates notability, and none of the results that come up on google for this company have that. Rorshacma (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect due to failing GNG. Note that the proposed redirect target is at AfD and doesn't appear notable either, so... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can locate that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Sourcing fails the criteria and there are insufficient indications of significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society or entertainment. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:03, 17 January 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 Hachette (publisher)#Publishing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pika Édition

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

Non-notable publishing company. Redirect to Hachette Livre. Mooonswimmer 15:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga, Companies, and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hachette Livre. Can't find any sources independent of the publishing house's own press releases and announcements. Appears to be one arm of the larger Hachette Livre brand. There isn't much information to really merge in the first place, so a redirect would make sense, but wouldn't be opposed to a 'Merge' closure too. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless improved. This fails WP:NCOMPANY as written right now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into to Hachette Livre per above. // Timothy :: talk 15:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Hachette Livre is a redirect itself, so it would not be a good redirect or merge target. Do you want to instead use its target page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lagardère Publishing. I was going to say Hachette Filippachi, but that's also owned by Lagardere. Oaktree b (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hachette (publisher)#Publishing; do not redirect to Lagardère Publishing. The Lagardère Publishing article does not mention Pika Édition at all, so it would be inappropriate to redirect there. Hachette (publisher) does mention this company, so it should be redirected there. Link20XX (talk) 23:38, 15 January 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!} 19:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birra Menaresta

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

Not notable. Small microbrewery with virtually no coverage in the media. The company is only mentioned in blogs/websites dealing with local breweries or in paid posts, no reliable sources Broc (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable information about this company on any browser.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:20, 18 January 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!} 19:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscany Camp

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

Was draftified in the hopes of improving sourcing, but was returned to mainspace without improvement. It gets some mentions, but there is not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show that it meets GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Other than its own sources, there has not been significant coverage. The camp's own website is by definition not independent and thus not reliable as the only sources. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 17 January 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) Linguist111 (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Soper

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

Actress with bit parts in various things. Only appears in credits lists, which is all the sourcing that's used in the article. No lasting in-depth coverage. Wes sideman (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passed WP:CREATIVE criterion 3 as the narrator of well-known works The Flumps. Also plenty to be found about her if you search google books, I was able to cite multiple aspects of her career that were uncited in the article CT55555(talk) 17:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/lifestyle/family-and-parenting/happy-memories-as-gay-soper-returns-to-chichester-festival-theatre-3783849 CT55555(talk) 17:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 17:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment While it's true she's mentioned in a few books, that's all it is: mere mentions. It's not "significant coverage in reliable sources", as mandated by WP:GNG. Even the source I just added for her Flumps narration is just a quick mention of her name. While you've also done some work adding references, which is good, each of those references is just a mention of her name in a cast. There is no in-depth coverage of her; in fact, there's no coverage of her in independent reliable sources at all beyond lists of cast members. Wes sideman (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment on above claim of WP:CREATIVE criterion 3: she does not pass that criterion. She was not the creator or co-creator of The Flumps. She was hired as a narrator. Wes sideman (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She played every voice role in the entire television production of The Flumps. I think it is fair for me to characterise that as satisfying played a major role in co-creating. She has played multiple lead roles, including in Godspell, to call these "bit parts" is inaccurate.

This actor has a 65 year stellar career that has spanned theatre, film, television and music and the productions she has played major roles in have won critical acclaim.

I've carefully read your rebuttal of my assessment, and I stand by my claims. I've further improved the article since my comments, and I am optimistic that a fresh review of the article might make it easier for you to agree. CT55555(talk) 21:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Soper appears to be more than 'an actress with bit parts in various things', and recordings of her work can be verified on e.g. Worldcat. She appears to have a well-established theater career, e.g. this 2012 Broadway World announcement includes a description of past credits, as does this 2013 Broadway World announcement; her role in Funny Girl also does not appear to be a 'bit part', according to these review roundups 1, 2 by Broadway World. Beccaynr (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her official website mentions The Telegraph, but the link doesn't work. Searching for her name there https://www.telegraph.co.uk shows two results. Must be a subscriber to view them. Dream Focus 20:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR#1; her career appears fairly prolific and recognized by multiple independent and reliable sources (e.g. WhatsOnStage 1, and a review of Crazy For You). She was in the original cast of Godspell (Playbill, 2014), and there are "3,046 results for “Gay Soper”" on Playbill. The article can be further developed with available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: a review in Theatre Record [5], discussion of the recording of Les Misérables in Broadway's Prize-winning Musicals (she played Madame Thénardier), and a brief description of The Flumps with a highlight of her role in The Little Book of Great Britain. Some older sources are not fully accessible but suggest further secondary coverage is available, e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9]. Beccaynr (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Feltham Chronicle 21 May 1998, Thu Page 18 Hounslow, London, England gives her significant coverage. If you have access to it, its at https://www.newspapers.com/image/903665585/?terms=Gay%20Soper&match=1 and praises her throughout the article. "Gay Soper's one woman cabaret show regularly captivates crowds as she sits alone on stage reciting excerpts from the homely Flumps programmes." and other such praise in that article. There are 4,222 matches at Newspaper.com for "Gay Soper". Dream Focus 01:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The following WP:RS reviews of different theatre productions over several years all single Soper out for praise: [10][11][12][13][14][15]. This WP:RS article [16] has a section devoted to the lead role she will be playing. Together with the other sources above this is not a 'bit part' actor, but very obviously someone with a significant and reviewed WP:NACTOR repertoire. I have added a selection of these refs to the article.ResonantDis_tortion 19:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasonings given by @Beccaynr. Remember WP:ARTN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has quite a career on Broadway. Passes WP:CREATIVE Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above mentions No need to add any more on this but multiple sources by the guardian are more than enough to show that this subject meets notability guidelines. GR86 (📱) 20:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. I note that a simple newspaper search online will find lots of reliable sources, as would a look at Worldcat. WP:NACTOR does not require starring roles; being a character actor or supporting roles can be sufficient for notability if the subject's career has gained coverage for both individual roles and for a body of work. Bearian (talk)

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. Consensus is that sufficient sources exist. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdallah Abu Sheikh

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication the person is notable other than association with potentially notable company (and company's notability is questionable). UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Jordan. UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see much change from the version deleted back in October. Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the additions by other users. FXBeats21 (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up, the article looks awful. Needs a lot of copy edits and more material, but sources (barely) meet WP:GNG.— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 14:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how the thorough coverage could support the subject's notoriety. This is not significant for the Wikipedia entry. Nick Jamie2 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He looks notable see [17][18][19][20][21] but needs clean up and additional reference. Princek2019 (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more round in light of the sources recently indicated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 14:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to Princek2019 for pointing out those sources but I don’t think they help. They are all mostly about his companies rather than him, or they are PR profiles or Forbes guff. Not useful for our purposes. Mccapra (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. While some sources are of the company, many also discuss him as an individual Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [22],[23],[24] and [25] are enough to establish notability. Puvasoca (talk) 6:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep. [26] And [27] are good sources itself accordingly and the subject is well sourced and Notable. It meets WP:SIGCOV. It is needed to be added to some more specific categories as someone had already tagged and a little cleanup needed in it. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 09:08, 17 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burke family (Castlebar)

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

It has been suggested they are not really all that notable.

I am unsure but can see how they might in fact just be publicity seekers of no lasting notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its simply a smear page. This is not what Wikipedia should be about.

Jonchache (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In its original version [[28]] it was blatant puffery, it looks like rather a (poorly executed) attempted to create a more balanced article about people who court publicity. But I am unsure the mess can be rescued into anything aproaoching wp:npov. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The family have been involved in several events over the last decade, all covered extensively by the Irish national news media. The article is compiled from information from highly reliable sources. The article means all the critea outlined in Wikipedia:Notability; Presumed, Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources and Independent of the subject. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - multiple notable incidents, all receiving national coverage, and some receiving international media coverage. Certainly satisfies WP:NOTABLE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Christianity, and Ireland. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I created the article, so obviously believe it to be notable, but won't vote either way, I'll accept the decision. Re: the blatant puffery, everything positive I included in the original was cited, though I didn't understand that some of the citations were to things self-published by the Burkes at the time. I don't really understand how you could argue that they aren't notable, given the extensive coverage of the family over the years in different mainstream national newspapers, including several articles dedicated to summarizing information on the family. I also don't really understand how this is a smear page: no opinion on any of the cases is given, only a summation of what has been published elsewhere. What about Elijah's successful campaign to ensure both he and other homeschooled students could avail of the predicted grades scheme could be considered a smear? Xx78900 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for me the issue is are they in fact individually notable, is there (a kind of) synthesis going on where cases about person A and cases about person B are being lumped together to create an article, when the individual alone would not pass notability? Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that in over half of the sections in the article, more than one family member is involved, I would say no, there is no synthesis. Assuming a section is not about the family as a whole and just starts out as involving, say, Person A alone, persons B, C, and D are also mentioned in sources as being involved or becoming involved in some manner or other. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A response I made to an IP user who had issue with the article, which originally prompted @Slatersteven to start the AfD, for context. Xx78900 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-cited with reputable sources. JRed176 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as there are no glaring WP:BLP violations and the sources establish that, as a collective, the family passes WP:GNG. Other concerns can be addressed within the article and on its talk page, but the article definitely has a raison d'être. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NOTABLE - Enoch Burke's court case in the national news every day. Spleodrach (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - they have been in the national news regularly for some time and I see no reason to doubt that they will continue to be. This article is really helpful background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:977:9D00:CD40:2B32:CC26:A34 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a genuinely baffling nomination seemingly based off one (non notability related) comment from IP address, with no indication of a WP:BEFORE having been carried out. Evident notability demonstrated by sources in article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enoch's court case appears in the national news almost every day and at one stage or another so did many of his family members. Seems to meet WP:NOTABLE.Dubarr18 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - can we just for a WP:SNOW-close at this stage? Or Slatersteven might consider withdrawing the nomination? I would suggest nominating articles for deletion because a clear WP:SPA (with possible WP:COI) forum-shops a complaint is maybe not the wisest course of action. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will bow to consensus, I am still un sure they are really notable (as opposed to publicity-seeking) but the community does not agree. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slatersteven - I'm involved, so can't close, but as nominator, you can - see WP:WDAFD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how, as I have never had to. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Although I disagree with their protests, I must agree they are notable. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 17 January 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. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kohima South Police Station

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

Zero in-depth coverage currently in article, or found during searches. Fails WP:GNG. Was redirected, but that was reverted, so now we are here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Geography, and Nagaland. Skynxnex (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was redirected before and the justification was sound for doing so, it should go back to what it was prior. JRed176 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, which is rarely given to individual police stations or precincts. -- Epluribusunumyall (talk) 10:20, 12 January 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 Survivor BG. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor BG: Fans vs Favorites

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

Long list of detailed event descriptions for a reality tv show season, without any independent sources to justify this level of detail. I redirected to Survivor BG#Season 5 which has the major facts about this season, but was reverted, so per WP:AFD the discussion is now here. The proposal is to redirect this, not to delete it. Fram (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Bulgaria. Fram (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm unfamiliar with the RS in Bulgarian media to be able to find sourcing, but the re-direct seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Survivor BG: Unless RS in Bulgarian can be produced. I imagine that enough foreign-language sourcing *does* exist for a show like this, but none of us have any way to find it so redirecting is the best option since it'll preserve the page history for potential future expansion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:00, 11 January 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 Pirate radio in the United Kingdom. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shine 879

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, conversion to redirect pointing to Pirate radio in the United Kingdom was contested but notability issues remain unaddressed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Piracy, and England. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per WP:CHEAP, I would suggest that instead of a full delete. I'd say it definitely fails WP:GNG to stand on its own regardless. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The station is licensed and originates its own programming - it has a history as a pirate radio station but is now legitimately on the air. Other digital-only UK radio stations have their own articles. Flip Format (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any examples of significant coverage of Shine 879 in an independent source? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: The sources convey reliability and sufficient notability.JRed176 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you could arrive at that conclusion. The current sources are:
- a non-independent history given by Shine
- Brief mention in The Guardian, where the entirety of text related to Shine is
  4.40 Today's pick-up point is Bethnal Green tube; Chris is otherwise engaged, so his colleague Trevor joins us. Our first destination is Shine FM, a 20-minute drive away. Trevor reveals the address. "You've heard about this street, yeah? It's notorious." 4.50 We tune into Shine FM, where Jazzy B's show is already under way. He shouts out to Pluto, then "to the Kings Cross ladies!" 5.00 After a short wait outside a Caribbean food store, a man in a white Le Coq Sportif jacket collects us, taking us through a black door, up five flights of stairs, past a box of unopened bills and a discarded rubber glove, into an empty flat. Shine FM - some decks, a MiniDisc player, speakers and an amp with its £15 Cash Converters sticker still displayed - is based in the kitchen. A spare mic rests on the draining board.
- brief mention in a broadcast licensing announcement
- Some coverage in passing in The Music Industry Raw
Across these sources, The Music Industry Raw has the beginnings of what could contribute to meeting GNG, and if supplemented by other sources providing equal-or-better coverage would establish notability, but the rest of the coverage does not pick up the slack. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - That it exists is not sufficient. Unless there's a more specific notability guideline (couldn't find one after a bit of digging), then WP:GNG and WP:NORG applies, and this article's subject meets neither of those. The station's website, trivial coverage, more trivial coverage, and a database listing are not sufficient as none of those contribute to the notability of the subject. I did find one story about a Shine FM threatening to "go pirate" but I think it's a different station because this one in the newspaper was a licensed station in Birmingham, not a pirate station in East London/Essex. The timeline doesn't match up; Birmingham's Shine FM had a license in 1998, when the East London/Essex Shine FM started as a pirate station in 1997. However, even if that source were about this article's subject, it alone wouldn't be enough. Pirate radio in the United Kingdom is a reasonable redirect target. - Aoidh (talk) 08:38, 14 January 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. Both sides have made policy-based arguments and there is no clear prevailing view – rather, there is a good-faith disagreement regarding whether GNG is passed or not. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul-Samadu Musafiri

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

Football coach who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC. Trivial media coverage. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kenya, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cursory glance at references on page already makes it seem like he passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ortizesp. @GiantSnowman:,, I found 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 among many many more African sources. Clearly was significant figure in local Ugandan football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Das osmnezz and Ortizesp ,subject passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources provided are routine coverage and focus heavily on MYDA rather than Musafiri. Dougal18 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further source analysis may be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails significant coverage (GNG) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned by other users, the provided coverage does not qualify as reliable independent WP:SIGCOV regarding the subject himself. --Angelo (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Das osmnezz has posted sources above showing subject passes GNG; some of the sources they post are questionable, but overall I think they show SIGCOV. I think Das osmnezz list also shows that research outside of the western media will show sources for notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not understanding the issue here - there's more than enough GNG coverage in the links provided above. Sure, some might be lower quality than others - but the claims it's all routine or about the team appear to be false! Nfitz (talk) 16:57, 16 January 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 Hairspray (musical). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 12:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big, Blonde and Beautiful

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

Not notable per WP:NSONGS, the information is primarily about the existence of the song rather than substantial information and where coverage exists, its quotes from the overall musical rather than articles specially about the song >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 12:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 12:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hairspray (musical): not finding any sources discussing the song beyond brief mentions among material about the musical generally. QuietHere (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hairspray (musical): It's not notable enough for its own stand-alone article.JRed176 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hairspray (musical). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:34, 14 January 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Prime Minister

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

Can't find sources online to verify this film and given the fact that the third source used in the article does not verify the statement and the IMDb link leads to a different page (when using a fixed link), makes me question this completely. Can't check the first two sources to see if they are valid. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Three weeks in the life of Prime Minister Nehru has the same problems. Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original source

Hi this is the original source 1 where the film Our Prime Minister is cited pls check if it works.

1. https://academic.oup.com/book/11288/chapter-abstract/159849298?redirectedFrom=fulltext

2. https://worldhistoryarchive.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/prime-minister-jawaharlal-nehru-very-rare-film/

Fostera12 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the full text of the first link, but the second one seems good. Since there is now a verified source I'm ok with closing this. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:* Keep. If the source is now good, it can be kept; there may be additional sources found in Newspapers.com, as is the case in another AFD. As need, info can be inserted about the need for additional souces — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRed176 - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there is now source WesSirius (talk) 00:21, 12 January 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 keep. Seems like this article passes notability guidelines for politicans. Closing per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabuhi Mammadov

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

There aren't enough sources available online to warrant a keep on the article. The article itself contains very much unsourced material that I cannot find online to support. I have proceeded to remove some of those. Also, quite a bit of sources that are used in the article are now dead linked. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPOL as the prime minister of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (WP:NSUBPOL). Curbon7 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also far more coverage in Azeri-language media than English, of course. Curbon7 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the Azeri version of this page and there were sources, but none really mention much of the subject other than that he became ~~a banker and~~ the prime minister of Nakhchivan. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just to clarify, the assembly appoints the Prime Minister so WP:NSUBPOL not applicable as the Prime Minister is part of the executive and not a member of the Supreme Assembly (see section 41 of the Constitution of Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic on eligibity conditions). However, the position is clearly within the remit of WP:NPOL and so presumed notability applies. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to nsub to clarify that though AZ is a unitary state, this province is autonomous, not necessarily for the legislature part. Curbon7 (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~Clearly passes WP:NPOL. Prime Minister of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic is also the member of Supreme Assembly (Nakhchivan), which is sub national parliament.~~𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LordVoldemort728 what sources demonstrate that Sabuhi Mammadov is a member of the Supreme Assembly? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:As of this wiki article, Prime Minister of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic "represents the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic in the Cabinet of Ministers of the Azerbaijan Republic in economic and cultural fields." which means he passes second line of Basic Criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Politicians. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:59, 14 January 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!} 04:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan TD engine

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

This article has existed on WP since 2008 and been tagged since 2018 for not citing sources. Yet it continues to be edited regularly with no effort to provide sourcing for the facts presented. A search for sources provided no credible third-party citations to support the facts being presented here. If we are developing an encylopedia, we must present facts and none of the remarkable detail presented here is supported by factual documentation. Even a dusty Nissan repair manual would do better than nothing. I respectfully suggest that this article be deleted, draftified OR combined with the separate "List of Nissan Engines" article (which, not surprisingly is also absent of any referencing). Volcom95 (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation. Volcom95 (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, if it's been tagged for over 15 yrs and no sources, delete it. I don't find anything, other than sites selling engine mods or youtube videos on how to fix the engine. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found some data on various sites about specs for this engine but unable to find anything substantial, suggesting not noteworthy. Will change this position if presented with evidence to the contrary. EvilxFish (talk) 08:37, 14 January 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!} 04:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dameer Khan

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

Non notable singer & promotional article. I am unable to see/find any significant covarage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

All of sources are either interview masquerading-as-an-article or press release type. Didn't won any major/notable award. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A note that another similar article was created here by a sock, which was later redirected by Bbb23. May be something going on somewhere? COI? আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the redirect, I had no previous knowledge of the revision since it is an old edit. I don’t understand what you mean by ‘COI’ or ‘was created by a sock.’ If you could please elaborate on that. Abyan Malek (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abyan Malek see WP:COI and WP:SOCKPUPPET for more information. The basic explanation is that "COI" stands for "conflict of interest", which could be something like a personal/professional connection with a subject which would make it inappropriate for you to be editing their page; and a sockpuppet is an undeclared second account by a user made to make it look like multiple people are taking the same side in a disagreement when in reality it's just one person disguising themself with multiple names. Allegations like these tend to get thrown around a lot by Wikipedia editors without any actual evidence so you probably don't have anything to worry about there. QuietHere (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. I am not professionally involved with the subject nor am I using several accounts. I know that these things are wrong to do very well. Abyan Malek (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The article has enough ‘reliable sources’ as per Wikipedia:Notability to back up the text. I understand that there are no awards won and that may affect the notability of the article, but the songs are notable worthy. If the article isn’t suitable in the main space, particularly for the lack of ‘awards’ then moving it back to the draft space is better. If you think the article is ‘promotional,’ worded differently ‘biased,’ then please suggest edits that can be done to make it bias-free. Abyan Malek (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what primary covarage? the whole article is based on interviews (all of sources are primary). I don't see any significant covarage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
does this count as secondary?

https://archive.dhakatribune.com/showtime/2021/03/02/four-awesome-bangladeshi-musicians-you-probably-don-t-know-about Abyan Malek (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. They are giving you youtube view counts and youtube link to subscribe! Thats pure promotional news. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the current coverage is early stage PR. No secondary refs available. Nothing really. scope_creep^Talk 05:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most of those references are from The Daily Star, which is currently the best selling English-language newspaper in Bangladesh and should be considered as stand-out coverage.Abbasulu (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As i said below, you have to provide significant covarage. Interview masquerading-as-an-article or press release isn't significant covarage, that's primary sources (Also i am sensing canvassing here, probably) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
definitely canvassing. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not canvassing, I am not in any way or form asking to take sides. I am just asking to contribute and share views on this matter, not influencing decisions. Abyan Malek (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like canvassing to me. He is asking you to vote on his Afd, you are asking him to yours. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with that. None of us have influenced each other's decision on sharing our points of views. Abyan Malek (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite citing only primary sources, I consider the subject matter of this article to have future potential merits, in which case it is better to move the article back to draft space, postponing its publication until having secondary and sufficient number of references.FriendofRafid (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring reliable or not, References 1 to 3, 5 & 7 are interview (primary), Reference 4 & 6 also interview masquerading-as-an-article. I am not sure how that fulfill WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. Please provide significant covarage. Interview masquerading-as-an-article or press release isn't significant covarage. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: I feel it meets notability standards. I made a couple of edits in the beginning so that it sounds more neutral. JRed176 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How it meets notability standards when there is zero independent covarage? Another new user. I wonder is there any offline canvassing going on? আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to understand and I want to make this very very clear. There is no canvassing going on. I don't even know this user. Abyan Malek (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have to agree with the above points that while sources in this article like The Daily Star are most likely reliable, the coverage they provide for this artist is primarily interviews, and the information in those articles can be difficult to call reliable secondary coverage for various reasons. Unless more independent non-interview coverage is available (I'm assuming not given none has been presented thus far here), I don't see this subject showing the required notability at this time. QuietHere (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I would like to request to move it back to the draft space, it has just one missing factor which can be found through the course of time. I have added a source that may most possibly be a secondary source: https://himitsu.audio/dameer/ Abyan Malek (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interviews and PR coverage. Nothing special. Maybe a case of too soon but he could be notable after a few years. He is very young.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The creating editor has requested draftification, which is a strong driver for this outcome. Current referencing is poor, majoring in interviews with Khan, but this may mature in Draft space. There is almost sufficient verified notability, but I view it as currently being on the wrong side of the threshold to keep. Arguably WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per the article creator's request as there is some promise such as the addition of two NME references since nomination, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 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 Moved to draft by author.. Moved to draftspace by article creator, created in mainspace by accident. Mainspace article deleted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Richter

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

There is no evidence of notability, it relies on his own website, and the other sources merely indicate that publications exist George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I don't think article creator intended to have this in main space yet, it clearly isn't ready. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I had meant to create it in draftspace and have moved it there now. Sorry for the trouble. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:11, 11 January 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 withdrew. (non-admin closure) Why? I Ask (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese writers

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

The scope of the list is too huge for one Wikipedia list. There's a reason we have Lists of American writers, not "List of American writers". China has a much longer literary history than the United States, so making a comprehensive list of Chinese writers is even more hopeless than making a comprehensive list of American writers. This page should be redirected to Lists of Chinese writers and we should make some sub-lists, (e.g. List of Chinese playwrights, List of writers from Yunnan, List of Uyghur writers, but not List of Chinese poets, because that would include basically every writer in ancient China. Mucube (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination because it doesn't seem like AfD is the right place to discuss this. Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Literature, and China. Mucube (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Feel free to split and move to Lists of Chinese writers as proposed though. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:25, 11 January 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!} 03:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Greenfield-Sanders

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

Very weak sourcing (one of the links is dead, the other is from a source I haven't heard of before), tagged as needing more sources since 2015. The only reliable sources about her are passing mentions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's this [29] which is only a brief mention and many hits for being friends with the Zoolander producer. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The above arguments say it all MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:43, 18 January 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 userfy and delete. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sujon Mahabub

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

Most of sources are about receiving a prize, but I don't think National Young Artist Art Exhibition is a major well-known and significant award (there are many such awards held every year in Bangladesh which has the word National in it) for which you will get automatic notability.

Apart from some passing mentions, i am unable to see/find any significant covarage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

All of Bengali & English source are either interview masquerading-as-an-article or passing mentions or press release. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 11 January 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. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mile Phakphum Romsaithong

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

Note: This article has been previously created under as Draft:Mile Phakphum Romsaithong as well as Draft:Phakphum Romsaithong, where it has been moved to mainspace without AfC submission.

The article entirely (while it does cite other sources, it doesn't seem to include much, if any, about the actual person) references YouTube music videos, which doesn't establish any notability. Because of this, the far majority of the page is a violation of WP:BLP due to unsourced content. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:11, 11 January 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!} 03:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Abendana Spencer

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

This artist fails WP:ARTIST using the fourth criterion, and likely WP:GNG too. I cannot find any news on him from Google News besides two passing mentions. On regular search I can only find biographies about him, a few websites with pictures of some of his art, and sites selling his works. The one reference on the page is also a website selling his art. The only unique site I found about him is one person who had written part of their dissertation on Kenneth. Although the page itself can't be used as a reference because it is a blog, the references from the page could possibly contain more than a passing mention, which could pass GPG. However, he does not seem to pass ARTIST at all. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Jamaica. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Paintings in the National Gallery of Modern Art (India)[30] and the National Gallery of Jamaica [31][32]. This is outsider art to some degree, but he's definitely achieved some recognition for it.[33][34]. (Also, can we not call him by his first name? That's a little strangely disrespectful.) Jahaza (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Curntag (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]
- — Curntag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, fails WP:GNG based on far too few sources and RS.— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Having paintings in two national galleries, including his home country, is very close to passing WP:NARTIST (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Strictly speaking, you would like to see three permanent collections represented, but since these are national galleries, I'm inclined to give him a pass. Curiocurio (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also found mention of his works at something called the Olympia in Jamaica, which seems to be different than the national gallery. Appears to be a permanent display in a legitimate gallery. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep He's definitely an accomplished artist and seems to pass WP:ARTIST. If your in a gallery, an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia is where you'd check for more information. Wikipedia Editor (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if and only if the sources found are added, with context, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Nothing in Gscholar, Gnews (other than a brief mention of his family donating money to a college) or in JStor. No name turns up in the Getty ULAN either. Weak keep given as he's in the permanent collections as described, but we'd need sourcing to be added to the article to confirm this fact. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His works have been featured in a number of auctions in Jamaica and abroad, not sure if that helps establish notability, but they go for a fair bit of money. At least helps prove critical attention in art circles I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more. Seems like a consensus for Weak Keep but hoping for more reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not find any better or more reliable sources. The current single source does not offer any information on the subject. The article was written in 2008 and the single citation was added in 2011. It appears that the information from this article has been used for biographical information for younger auction site listings.

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) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 02:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini Home Entertainment

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

We have a patreon, three student sources, a self-published WordPress zine and two Screen Rant listicles for sources. I'm unsure about the reliability of Hyperreal Film Club. I'm an analog horror fan, but even bigger ones like the Mandela Catalogue don't have sufficient sourcing to warrant their own articles. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 01:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, some sources, like the Post work, not enough to possibly make this a full or regular keep to me. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems pretty straightforward to me, it's nontrivially mentioned in more than one independent source. — Xaonon (Talk) 05:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems like a series popular enough to warrant an article and has its own merch line. However, it's not popular enough that I can see why someone would nominate it, but I think it just barely escapes the category of non-notability. I actually think the Mandela catalogue deserves it's own article too. Thank you & have a good day. Tvshowoflife (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments listed above - the page could use some more sources, but what we have so far is already pretty solid. --BrayLockBoy (talk) 19:52, 12 January 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!} 03:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Serafyn

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

Ukrainian musician, lack of notability, instagram and couple of local news about his debuts Anntinomy (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Comment. He is probably notable as one of hosts of a show at 1+1 (TV channel) (i.e. ru:Завтрак с 1+1) - [35]. Other than that, he is covered in Ukrainian press, but I can't say how significant that might be. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a host but one-time guest on the video linked -- Anntinomy (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. It only says he started the show. WP:ENTERTAINER seems to be subjective. It says "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". What does it mean "prolific" or "unique"? Every good/gifted singer or composer is unique. I am simply looking at the page and think that (a) the content is mostly sourced, and (b) based on the description on page, this is someone who possibly/probably passes WP:GNG. I am not saying he definitely passes GNG, meaning that the argument for "keeping" is weak, and deletion would not be unreasonable (hence I changed the vote). My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep : I'm mostly on the fence. WP:GNG seems questionable but slightly positive (against deletion).The sources listed on the page seem to include adequate coverage of secondary sources, but whether that is significant or whether those sources are reliable for this discussion is questionable. WP:ENTERTAINER seems questionable but slightly negative (in favor of deletion). He has certainly not satisfied "significant roles in multiple notable" events. Nor have his contributions been extraordinarily unique, prolific, or innovative. I'm marking this as weak keep only because I think the arguments for deletion are not quite sufficient to justify deletion, though they are very very close. Radzy0 (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS Some of his notability is from his volunteer efforts, not from his role as an entertainer. So WP:ENTERTAINER, though not satisfied, is less important. Radzy0 (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer efforts are not supported with reliable sources. References 1 and 2 - his Instagram, reference 7 doesn't mention him as organizer, his name is on the poster among other singers announced for the concert (so, this isn't even a report from the event). Anntinomy (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Seems like No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There need to be some English language sources. There's already a page in Ukrainian for him if you look. So he's notable in that regard; however, the norm is to have English language sources on the English Wikipedia page. If not, it's normally deleted. JRed176 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that English-language sources are required. The test is notability. Elinruby (talk) 08:19, 14 January 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!} 06:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Journal of Asian Affairs

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. ~ Nanosci (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals. Nanosci (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I PRODed this back in 2013 and nothing seems to have changed. At the time, it was suggested that this could be merged somewhere, but that hasn't happened either and, in fact, I don't see where this could be merged. --Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article could be merged with the editor-in-chief BM Jain. Sima Sam (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As stated, previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. It might be worth some time to consider possible Merge targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NJOURNALS. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 13 January 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!} 03:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Ilić (footballer, born 1999)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not even a match at the top division. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless more can be found that weights against the absence of notability. Granted, it's a stub. Is there a Wikipedia article about the person in another language? I could not find it. JRed176 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nope, this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Searches across Google and the Wikipedia Library points instead to Marko Ilić (footballer, born 1998). Search in Serbian doesn't change the result, either. Regardless, what's with the mirrored-Wikipedia websites, anyway? Coincidence? Sarrail talk 23:52, 11 January 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!} 03:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tibor Berak

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not even a match in the top division. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable (yet) for the purposes of an article.JRed176 (talk) 21:32, 11 January 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!} 03:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Jakovljević

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only 1 game in Serbian top division. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no tangible evidence of notability JRed176 (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a passing mention in Dnevnik but nothing else other than a few articles published by his football club, which is not an independent source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 17 January 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 Adobe FrameMaker#History. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Corfield

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Potentially notable but zero coverage. Prod1 and 2 tags which were accurare, have been removed by caustic WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 00:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the PROD and PROD2 tags, there is zero-SIGCOV on this person in any RS, despite being a WP BLP for over 20 years. The only RS is on the Times rich-list (net worth is c £100m), and their donations to Cambridge (who named a lizard after him in return). If being rich is WP:N, the he would be a pass, but he is almost a ghost in terms of GNG. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Adobe FrameMaker#History. I added the prod2. Rationale was: Likely most notable as being the creator of FrameMaker, but WP:NOTINHERITED and what RS coverage I found (e.g. [36]) is focused on the software rather than its creator. Jfire (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear relevant or notable. Not enough sources either and they are non-reliable from my POV. StarryNightSky11 ^☎ 03:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject's notability is not evident.JRed176 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adobe FrameMaker#History. The creation of FrameMaker is notable, but there is not much coverage of the subject here, and it anyway looks like a WP:BLP1E. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Creating FrameMaker sounds like the sort of thing that might reasonably lead to notability, but it needs GNG-level in-depth coverage of the subject (separated enough from the coverage of FrameMaker to show independent notability). It's the sort of thing that might have been published in a trade magazine of the time, but I couldn't find anything like that, and without the sources, we have no independent notability. Redirects are cheap, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 12 January 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 Insteon#Corporate history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insteon (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are company blogs, patents, aquisitions, company documents, partnership and press-releases. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 00:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Insteon#Corporate history. All the non-corporate-history information here is already elsewhere in that article. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 02:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~: Merge into Insteon#Corporate history: I second that. JRed176 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)~~ - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge WesSirius (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Examination of the references:

Ref 1 [37] Trademark. Non-rs.
Ref 2 [38] Use of the device to control home. Fails WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a manual, although it does verifiy the products were popular in the hobbyist, DIY and craft folk.
Ref 3 404. Unable to locate.
Ref 4 [39] News about it closing down. Valid source.
Ref 5 [40] New about it being up. Valid source.
Ref 6 [41] Blog ref. Non-RS.
Ref 7 Patents. Non-RS.
Ref 8 [www.ocbj.com/news/2015/jan/06/insteon-partners-nest/] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as press-release.
Ref 9 [42] Seems to be manual, describing the product. Product review.
Ref 10 [www.insteon.net/aboutInsteon.html] Primary. Non-RS.
Ref 11 [43] Passing mention.
Ref 12 [44] Press-release.
Ref 13 [45] Product review.
Ref 14 Product review.

Of the 14 refs, 2 product reviews, 2 press-releases, 4 Non-rs, 1 manual, 1 passing mention, 1 404, 1 WP:NOT fail and 2 secondary refs. No indication of being notable due to lack of coverage. scope_creep^Talk 11:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd pose that the strongest claim to notability here is that it was down for two months, leaving its few customers stranded, but this ends up only in Ars Technica and was not carried in any newspapers per ProQuest, indicating that few were concerned. Many, many product reviews exist, but nothing that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH. FalconK (talk) 09:58, 15 January 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.