Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 13	January 15 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General Catalyst[edit]

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

Venture capital company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE announcements for a company in this industry. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, California, Massachusetts, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Catalyst Partners.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NCORP - the article is based on trivial coverage and mostly low-quality sources (e.g. TechCrunch, PEHub, Xconomy, www.bizjournals.com) in addition to the company website, because the reports are about the hiring [...] or departure of personnel, mergers, and capital transaction[s], such as raised capital. An online search finds similar (e.g. 2007 NYT brief coverage of a funding announcement; 2021 Forbes funding announcement, interview with "the firm’s sole managing partner", mention of a non-notable award; 2021 Bloomberg interview with "Chairman & Managing Director"; various press releases, e.g. 2022, 2021; a 2022 WSJ report on an announced capital transaction; and a brief 2016 Boston Globe report about a capital transaction, past transactions, and past employment of Charlie Baker and related local controversy. I cannot access the full version of this 2021 StatNews source, which is about the hiring of personnel, but seems to include at least some depth about the company. There seem to be a lot of low-quality sites churning announcements/PR, but there do not appear to be multiple sources with WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources found are all form Global Newswire and Business Wire, PR sources. Nothing I find can be used for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British Economical Society, Ltd.[edit]

British Economical Society, Ltd.:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Not enough cites to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added Find Sources for the alternative names above. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It looks like a delete based on the English language searches but I think it needs somebody who reads Turkish to evaluate the searches for the two Turkish names. The lack of a Turkish language article is not encouraging though. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A search for “ Ingiliz Kooperatifi Kadiköy” shows some plausible online sources and a range of snippet views in Google books, so likely to be a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mccapra, its a company so NCORP guidelines apply. If its a "weak keep" with the more relaxed GNG, is it safe to assume it fails NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell because I don’t know what’s missing from the snippet views but most likely yes it would fail NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You'd think the first/oldest supermarket in Turkey would have helped but I'm unable to locate any sources nor claims that meet NCORP criteria (because this is a company) for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, I couldnt find anything about this.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:21, 20 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tajiat Olympic Stadium[edit]

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

Currently sourced by mostly primary and unreliable sources. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Football, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football stadiums in Iraq, not notable separately. Giant Snowman 16:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see notability here, it will only get stronger over time. Either that or send to draft space, but I feel there is just enough to warrant the article. Govvy (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure how a new 60,000 seat stadium would ever not be notable. A quick google search finds one, two, and three, in addition to the references already in the article. Before failure. Can you review User:GiantSnowman? Nfitz (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are questionable - this is a proposed stadium, no doubt notable if/when it gets built... Giant Snowman 19:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not proposed. It's well under construction. You can even see it in the airphoto on Google Maps. Heck, if they don't finish it for some reason, an abandoned 60,000 seat stadium would also be notable - when's the last time that happened? Besides - it meets GNG with these sources. In what way do you think they are questionable User:GiantSnowman? There's more sources ... I thought three was enough. Nfitz (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Construction finally started in 2013, however by 2022, the stadium is still not completed, with the head of Ministry of Youth and Sports and Iraqi Football Association president Adnan Dirjal saying that the stadium construction is on hold as they are waiting for more money to complete it as it requires a lot of money". Giant Snowman 18:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you are finding significant coverage too! No, the stadium isn't finished yet - but it's well underway! The question here is the notability - not the construction status. Even proposed projects can be notable, let alone those under construction! Nfitz (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep Nfitz has a point about its notability and the article does not look bad. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discarding a couple of contributions above which don't add much to the policy discussion here, no consensus has yet formed and there are unaswered questions from GS to those !voting keep. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like it makes notability WesSirius (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A big stadium with 60.000 seats should be notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:58, 20 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!} 07:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Worthington (journalist)[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth sourcing to show that he meets WP:GNG. Lots of mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Singapore. AllyD (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't soft-delete due to this, so relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existing sources do not show any evidence of significant and independent coverage, and I could not find anything better. Jfire (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Distinguishing the phases of the subject's career: (1) As a working BBC journalist he reported on various stories of the day, but notability is not inherited, nor is one report's nomination for an award notable in itself; (2) As a Bell Pottinger Asia executive, there is no clear notability; (3) His involvement in buyout/rebrand of Klareco Communications does not appear distinctly notable; (4) Nor does he appear specifically notable as an occasional media guest commentator on business events. Overall I am not seeing evidence of specific notability here. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOAHFINNCE[edit]

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

Coverage seems to be limited to what's on the page. The artist appears to be a rising star so perhaps it's just premature, but I don't think there's a GNG or NBAND pass here just yet.
And frankly, I admit I just want this page deleted so I can stop getting notifications for it after I made it as a redirect last year (not that this is a good reason or part of my actual argument for deletion, but I'm annoyed so I'm saying it anyway). For some reason I don't seem to have any ability to get rid of those and I'm tired of 'em. QuietHere (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. QuietHere (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And don't let me forget to mention that there was just a PROD on the page which was removed by the article creator noting the complete lack of sources at the time. QuietHere (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might be getting all those notifications simply because you are "watching" the page. That option is selected automatically when someone creates a page, which probably happened to you as the creator of the old redirect. You may see the "unwatch" option in the tabs at the top of the current article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not watching it. Or at least I wasn't before starting this AfD. I'm well familiar with the watchlist and curate mine strictly, and for me that involves unwatching all redirects I make. To be clear, when I say "notifications" I mean the alerts under the bell at the top of the page as well as the notices menu next to it. e.g. My most recent alert is for a PROD notice from a bot for this article which should've gone to the initial contributor instead. QuietHere (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It is possibly WP:TOOSOON, but the article can be expanded beyond its current state. The article already has two reliable sources from Kerrang and Alternative Press. He has another Alternative Press story here: [1]; and a few other appearances in Kerrang, including this album review: [2]. And here's a big feature article from another reliable source: [3]. I won't argue too much, but this may be a case of a deficient article that makes the subject look less notable than he is, and it could be improved rather than deleted. (However, I am unimpressed by how he YELLS HIS NAME...) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember there was a previous version of this article with his name spelled as "Noahfinnce" and I'm pretty sure it should be moved back to that if it is kept given it doesn't appear to be an acronym. QuietHere (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, all of the reliable sources use the YELL spelling so it's his fault. The recent trend of all-caps names for Gen-Z musicians really annoys me, but I'm only visiting that planet. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the sources identified by Doomsdayer along with Gay Times that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: Doomsdayer has it right. The sources are fine, it's maybe just barely not too soon but I don't see why this isn't keepable at this point. I just want the notifications gone but this is obviously not the venue for that and this AfD just looks really silly when most of it is about that. QuietHere (talk) 23:47, 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 redirect to Sailing at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Dragon. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auguste Galeyn[edit]

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

A Lugnuts sporting substub. A one-time olympian who placed 17th in sailing. BrigadierG (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. BrigadierG (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sailing at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Dragon as I couldn't find evidence of notability. Could also be redirected to Belgium at the 1952 Summer Olympics but he isn't mentioned there. Suonii180 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sailing at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Dragon as a good alternative to deletion. That's the clear target since the subject is named there. No evidence of notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:47, 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Tekian[edit]

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

I'm unconvinced that the subject here meets WP:NPROF, and see little sign of meeting other notability criteria. The citation rate is moderate in what I believe to be a higher citation rate field, and the awards are minor and/or localized. Meanwhile, I am concerned about a possibly deceptive editing pattern: the page has been advanced by SPA Mededbios. While the page log history is a mess (with the logs I can read being confused between various draft and mainspace versions of the page), I recall it being Mededbios, or another contributor with the appearance of WP:COI, who requested deletion of an earlier and mostly identical draft. It appears that this may have been an attempt to divorce the page from its history. Given this history of apparent WP:COI editing and marginal notability, I would like to bring this page to the attention of other editors. Please count my own !vote here as weak delete, with the WP:TNT essay being relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject is accomplished, but I largely agree with Russ Woodroofe. He falls short even of the WP:NACADEMIC-criteria he initially seemed to meet: his appointments are not of the highest tier, his citation count is low for the sub-discipline (as far as I can judge), and Medical Education doesn't strike me as a leading journal. I'm somewhat on the fence about the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and whether it's enough for WP:ANYBIO. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Russ's well-explained nomination. I'm not convinced the award, which is given to 80+ Americans per year, is enough for ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 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 keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Jagah Apni[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE. Being selected for Cannes Film Market isn't enough for notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per reviews in Scroll.in and Screen International. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are three reviews from Scroll.in, Screen Daily and India Today. I can find some more sources also like from Moneycontrol, The Indian Express and The Free Press Journal. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also found this one more review Mathrubhumi and this news article Mans World India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are 4 reviews and 6 news sources with significant coverage from many popular news sources of India so this film passes WP:NFILM. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I checked the Screen Daily and Scroll.in sources and they are definitely NFILM-compliant, full reviews. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources reviews identified in this discussion that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:10, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of products manufactured by Kodak[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTCATALOG. WP:LSC says Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence and this list is just a compilation of things that exist (from a commerical company). Terrible referencing, significant red-links and non-links. Mikeblas (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article only listed things that had their own Wikipedia article, then it would be valid. Category:Kodak shows plenty of content there. What you have now is just a lot of nonsense. Dream Focus 20:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Wikipedia is not a list of every single product ever made by a manufacturer. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCATALOGUE, Alex-h (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCATALOGUE. I am currently improving the main article on Kodak and some of the information in this article may be of use there. I have copied the text into my sandbox for now to review. Rocfan275 (talk) 20:49, 19 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!} 21:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam songs recorded by S. Janaki[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. This is a non notable intersection, virtually unsourced 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:41, 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}}.

Strongly Keep - This article is well referenced and such songs listings are well accepted in wikipedia. Previously, similar articles were up for deletion and have successfully survived deletion discussion. So, I Don't think when a singer sings more than 500 songs in a language and all of them are found in a reliable database (malayalachalachithram.com), that list can't be non-notable intersection. Abbasulu (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question, what makes this list different in notability to, for example, List of songs recorded by Robbie Williams? Elemimele (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(i.e. what I'm getting at is how do we establish notability of lists of songs; these two singers, Robbie Williams and S. Janaki, are both clearly notable, both have enormous lists of songs that wouldn't fit easily in their articles, so what is it that we're looking at, when we decide if the list is okay as a stand-alone?) Elemimele (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is your vote count as support or oppose? Abbasulu (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per Elemimele. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 02:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to delete I looked at some more songs on the list and I couldn't find any sources for them except the fact that they exist, I originally said keep because I found some sources for some of the songs and assumed that it would be like that for the rest of them. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 16:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article is 99% unsourced. Keep !votes need to address this if they want to form a valid keep rationale. It can't stand as is. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect a singer with 1000 songs, every songs must have a reference, the most referencrd article has less than 500 references. You can search each and every song in https://malayalachalachithram.com and https://msidb.org. Abbasulu (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be sourced, it can't be on Wikipedia, full-stop. You can't expect Wikipedia to keep unsourced content on it. You need a different argument than this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be bothered sourcing it then don't make the article in the first place. The whole point of Wikipedia is that we cite our sources, not expect others to go out and go somewhere else for a source FishandChipper 🐟🍟 18:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Serge here and I hasten to add that WP:V is a core Wikipedia policy, which all editors must do their best to abide to. Any information or, for that matter, articles that cannot be reliably sourced must be deleted. I can't think of any valid exceptions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete You can not have WP:SIGCOV without WP:V. It a core tenet. This is currently a unsourced (mostly) structured list that fails WP:NLIST. Every single entry needs to referenced otherwise it cannot be on Wikipedia. We do not store unreferenced content, and what references are they are clickbait sites, sites similar discogs and IMDB and several references that fail WP:SPS. It is absolutely woefully inadequate as a list on Wikipedia. Changed from delete to strong delete. scope_creep^Talk 13:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Abbasulu has canvassed quite a lot of editors see here from 14:54 on 16 Jan onwards. I believe that this violates WP:CANVAS as the editor is notifying a very large number of editors that they know will !vote keep at the 3 AfDs and could potentially have a big impact on the outcome. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just noticed Canvassing by author Abbasulu. This is not the first time they did this, see also. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - As with almost every other list you they have made this one fails both WP:SIGCOV and WP:V. And then to turn around and tell people to do the sourcing themselves? It's not only rude it's insulting FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm really worried here that when someone does some canvassing, the debate becomes emotional, and there is naturally strong indignation against the side that did the canvassing. We must not let this get in the way of making the right decision. There is little doubt that the singer herself is notable by WP standards, and there's little doubt that she sang this lot, and that it could be verified if anyone can be bothered to go through the truly prodigious amount of searching that would be necessary to find a source for every entry (not prodigious because it's hard to verify any particular song; prodigious because she sang 10,000 of the things). I asked above, what are our criteria for splitting out someone's discography into a list separate to their article. I haven't had a reply. We can't cram all this lot back into the article on Janaki herself. Are we deleting to make a point? Do we want a discography at all? Is it practical, given how much she sang? What is the best way of helping our readers? Elemimele (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele the likely answer is WP:NOTDATABASE. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of three things would need to happen. First option would be that someone works on this in draft or user space until the article is in an acceptable state and then afterwards returns the article to mainspace. If that can't happen then a second option would be trimming down this list so that it only contains entries that can be reliably sourced, the downside to that would be that it wouldn't be an exhaustive list any more. The third option is that consensus decides, because of WP:NOT or otherwise, that the topic just is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. The artist in question is no doubt notable but that does not necessarily mean that an exhaustive list of their songs is a notable topic itself. Another example of this sort of situation is in sports. Anyone that has heard of Lionel Messi would agree that Messi is notable. This does not mean, however, that List of football matches featuring Lionel Messi would be an appropriate topic, even though such a topic probably could be reliably sourced. Hope that helps. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure why I was canvassed to this discussion, but "if someone asks you to provide a source, you're expected to provide a source" is such a basic fundamental of Wikipedia that it doesn't even warrant discussion. ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept deletion per Timtrent's comment about not-database. But I'd point out (again) that the AfD instructions are clear: it is the job of the nominator to check that sourcing does not exist. This is obviously in flat contradiction to the requirement that articles in main-space must have supporting sources. To get round this conflict, I feel there's a case for moving articles and lists that are almost certainly verifiably correct, but which are currently inadequately sourced, into draft-space rather than deleting. But I'm not recommending it in this case because 10,000 songs is too many to list, and I think her story would be better told by concentrating on the highlights. Elemimele (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 20 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!} 21:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam songs recorded by K. J. Yesudas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. This is a non notable intersection, virtually unsourced 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:41, 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}}.

Strongly Keep - This article is well referenced and such songs listings are well accepted in wikipedia. Previously, similar articles were up for deletion and have successfully survived deletion discussion. So, I Don't think when a singer sings more than 500 songs in a language and all of them are found in a reliable database (malayalachalachithram.com), that list can't be non-notable intersection. Abbasulu (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST and WP:SIGCOV. References are clickbait sites, IMDB equivalents, sites to discogs and profiles. scope_creep^Talk 13:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NLIST and, more importantly, WP:V. See my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Malayalam songs recorded by P. Susheela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone, couldn’t find any sources talking about the sings other than the fact that they exist. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 15:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Abbasulu has canvassed quite a lot of editors see here from 14:54 on 16 Jan onwards. I believe that this violates WP:CANVAS as the editor is notifying a very large number of editors that they know will !vote keep at the 3 AfDs and could potentially have a big impact on the outcome. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just noticed Canvassing by author Abbasulu. This is not the first time they did this, see also. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure why I was canvassed to this discussion, but "if someone asks you to provide a source, you're expected to provide a source" is such a basic fundamental of Wikipedia that it doesn't even warrant discussion. ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 20 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!} 21:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam songs recorded by P. Susheela[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. This is a non notable intersection, virtually unsourced 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:40, 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}}.

Strongly Keep - This article is well referenced and such songs listings are well accepted in wikipedia. Previously, similar articles were up for deletion and have successfully survived deletion discussion. So, I Don't think when a singer sings more than 500 songs in a language and all of them are found in a reliable database (malayalachalachithram.com), that list can't be non-notable intersection. Abbasulu (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is valid for a strong keep. None of your argument and stating strong keep warranted. scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NLIST and WP:SIGCOV. References are clickbait sites, IMDB equivalents, sites to discogs and profiles. scope_creep^Talk 13:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NLIST and violates WP:NOR and WP:NOTDATABASE and, ultimately, WP:V. If the article cannot be adequately sourced from top to bottom then it is not suitable for Wikipedia. If someone believes that there is potential for improvement, then I would suggest a move to draft or user space for now. Also bear in mind that there would need to be actual significant coverage of this topic and not just simple verification that she exists and that her songs exist. There are millions of singers and musicians worldwide and we certainly do not need an exhaustive list of songs sung by every single one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just go and search for National Film Award for Best Male Playback Singer and National Film Award for Best Female Playback Singer. All of tgese three singers have earned at least 4 national awards. So, they are not any random singers out of millions of singers. Abbasulu (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but what Spiderone is saying is that the singer AND her songs need secondary sources and be somewhat notable in their own right to belong to a list. I said keep for your other song discussion because I found a few somewhat reliable sources for most of the song, but this one I could not. Also, I advise you not to try and get similar minded people to support you, like you did by asking for my help on my talk page, because that could be seen as meatpuppetry. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 15:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone, couldn’t find any sources talking about the songs individually other than the fact that they exist. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 15:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Abbasulu has canvassed quite a lot of editors see here from 14:54 on 16 Jan onwards. I believe that this violates WP:CANVAS as the editor is notifying a very large number of editors that they know will !vote keep at the 3 AfDs and could potentially have a big impact on the outcome. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just noticed Canvassing by author Abbasulu. This is not the first time they did this, see also. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article does partially fail WP:NLIST because of reliable sources. I have noticed the discography section in the original article has missing songs, so I think the best option is to merge this article with that one.Abyan Malek (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure why I was canvassed to this discussion, but "if someone asks you to provide a source, you're expected to provide a source" is such a basic fundamental of Wikipedia that it doesn't even warrant discussion. ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was canvassed to this discussion, most likely because I voted keep in a similar AFD. However, I agree partially with the nominator in this case. The article's referencing is poor; relying on content from unreliable websites. There also seems to be original content in the article and WP:OR is an issue. The sourcing here is too thin to pass WP:SIGCOV and as such the topic fails WP:NLIST and should be deleted. However, I strongly disagree with some of the deletion arguments made here. A list of songs recorded by a notable singer (which this one is) is not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization as their recordings are directly tied to what makes them principally notable; their work as a singer. Discographies of singers are routinely published in academic reference works on musicians, so the arguments made here about the topic somehow being non-encyclopedic or failing WP:NOTDATABASE is absolute nonsense. The latter policy has four clearly defined criteria; none of which apply to this topic.4meter4 (talk)
Delete as per nom and above editors.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 20 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!} 21:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Polling[edit]

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

Org appears to be non-notable. Only meaningful in depth coverage is the org's criticism by NYT. Other sources are fluff pieces by local outlets lacking independently-sourced content. The article, particularly History section, contains mostly non-notable/promotional trivia about founders.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete They have had coverage from reliable sources, but generally just passing mentions. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete High school project that has conducted less than ten polls with questionable methodology and data. Not relevant to polling, not relevant to politics. Article was almost certainly written by one of the kids. KingForPA (talk) 04:27, 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 Miss Earth 2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeen Ayoub[edit]

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

Hello all ... Some of the facts in this article are incorrect, and when looking at the content of the article, we clearly see that the article promotes a specific personality, without links or sources that fully confirm the facts. There are also suspicions of a conflict of interest, as the one who created the article also created the article on the Arabic Wikipedia with a request that he create the article at the request of the same person. Also, the person who created the article created another account through which he uploaded about 6 pictures of the character mentioned in the article, and all the pictures are in violation of copyright.

When reviewing the reason for the establishment, we see that the reason is not real, as she did not win the title, but she was among the candidates. The article is full of promotion, publicity and exaggeration of the topic, and it is a biography and not an article. The article should be deleted. Osps7 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Osps7 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Health and fitness, Beauty pageants, Palestine, Canada, Michigan, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Earth 2022, where she is already mentioned, per WP:BLP1E. Sources I have found focus on this event, e.g. Palestine’s Nadeen Ayoub nabs runner up title at Miss Earth beauty pageant (Arab News, Nov. 30, 2022, "Ayoub is the first woman to represent Palestine at the event"), Nadeen Ayoub says she went to Miss Earth to be a voice for Palestinians (The National (Abu Dhabi), Dec. 7, 2022, "made history last month by placing in the final four of the Miss Earth global pageant — the first time someone from Palestine has ranked so high in a major beauty competition"), Palestinian Nadeen Ayoub crowned Miss Earth Water (Al Bawaba, Nov. 30, 2022, "the first-ever Palestinian to participate in Miss Earth"). The coverage does not yet appear to be persistent in order to support significance or a high profile per WP:BLP1E, and there is limited secondary context or other coverage to help support notability for a standalone article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The article feels somewhat promotional, echoing issues on references. It probably could be cleaned up, but a delete and redirect as mentioned above works just as well. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:47, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Day, Clatsop County, Oregon[edit]

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

I've gone back and forth with this in my mind and even slept on it, but I've decided to see what others think. I'm unable to find any substantive online sources about this place (searching is not helped by there being an incorporated John Day elsewhere in Oregon and there being a river of the same name in the area), and there's no entry for this place in the GNIS, which seemingly has entries for all recognized places in the United States. The photo in the article was clearly taken hereabouts, and there is certainly a road sign reading "John Day" there, but neither Google Maps nor the OpenSteetMap labels the place. I just question whether there are sources to justify the article's existence. Deor (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GEOLAND as I don't think this area (location?) establishes notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also can't find any particular sources referring this place. The only official Clatsop County materials refer to a park, and obviously the river. Beyond the photo of the sign, it's not really clear that this is a distinct place. Steven Walling • talk 19:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially all of the sources on this subject refer to the city and not the unincorporated community. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I delved into a few sources. Here is a brief mention in a local arts and entertainment weekly that mentions the unincorporated community of Clatsop County John Day. However, that's a brief, uncited mention and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Lewis McArthur's Oregon Geographic Names mentions a "John Day railway station" as a place along the Clatsop County John Day River, but not a town by that name. That book should have the best explanation and research of any source. I heard years ago that the Clatsop County John Day was a small, unincorporated town until the formalization of the Postal Service required only one town in a given state to have a certain name. So it was scrubbed from official documents to avoid confusion. However, I can't find a source for that. This might be the name of the region around the river or the name of a former railway station, but I can't find any evidence that it was ever a bona fide town or community. I would change my vote with better evidence, though.

QuintinK (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GEOLAND. If sources emerged giving notability, then maybe a redirect. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:43, 19 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!} 21:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Lancs Opus 2[edit]

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

Poorly created article, no sources available for this product except on picture sites like Flickr which wouldn't count as a reliable source of info. NHPluto (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East Lancashire Coachbuilders as it is the company that produces the buses NotOrrio (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not verify the existence of this model. Sources found were Flickr and Wiki mirrors. If someone finds a reliable source, the article can be redirected. gidonb (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect per nom and Gidonb. A redirect would be inappropriate given there is no mention at all of this model at East Lancashire Coachbuilders and there are no sources which would justify adding any mention. A7V2 (talk) 23:34, 20 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!} 21:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to be a real order, and the supposed royal house does not appear to be legitimate or mentioned in any media outside self-published works CoconutOctopus talk 16:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure this is even a thing, the crests used here look like a job made in Microsoft Paint. I don't find any sources, facebook is about the best. The government of Ghana has nothing about this order on their various sites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can search .gh sites, for Ghanian ones, nothing notable comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article was overwhelmingly deleted in a 2020 AFD, with contributors there suspecting it was a hoax, and then just recreated now. While I don't think its a straight up hoax, it is certainly non-notable. What very few references I found that mention it (none of which would be considered either reliable or significant coverage) would seem to indicate that this "order" was created sometime around 2019-2020, and just is not a notable organization. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I am sending you a link to the site https://www.royalhousemim.org/armsorders. In addition, from what it seems to me, it works on the following principle: Royal Order of the Lion of Godenu.

link https://uchterhous.org/knights-2/elementor-1149/kingdom-of-sefwi-obeng-mim/.

https://www.reddit.com/user/HeraldicArtist/comments/dgxubr/order_of_wear_of_grand_cross_of_the_royal_order/

https://docplayer.net/198671043-2020-development-report.html

https://www.griffofocasusa.org/delegate

I found many, many links about the Royal House of Sefwi Beng-Mim. There is a lot of information about their charity work. If the article is wrong or something needs to be improved, please let me know what is wrong and it will be corrected.

I don't think the page has been removed. There are many sites just look for that confirm the law. RH poland (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the same sources that were linked to in the last AFD that resulted in deletion, and the exact same explanation from then still stands - these are all either not reliable sources, not significant coverage of the subject, not secondary sources, or, in most cases, a combination of all three. Rorshacma (talk) 01:36, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 16:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tearstained[edit]

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

No references _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 11:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 11:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band's page. The most coverage I could find was this [4][5][6] and the latter two are very questionable in terms of reliability. The band page doesn't look great either, someone should give that and the rest of their albums a look. QuietHere (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rock Hard is a long-running German metal magazine in print form, and I would consider this a reliable source. Charon themselves are certainly notable: they have had charting albums and singles in Finland [7], including a no. 1 single with "In Trust of No One", but this particular album doesn't appear to have charted anywhere. Richard3120 (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources presented above. There may be close to enough coverage about the album. SBKSPP (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 15:45, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ryan Lauer[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I am unable to find significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 15:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. ... discospinster _talk 15:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Got his master's in 2021... Epic fail of WP:ACADEMIC, nor does it meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Poetry, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of this article does not meet WP notability criteria for WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC. Seems to be a vanity page or possible autobiography by a SPA. Netherzone (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All primary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Curiocurio (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too soon, not close to being notable. --Mvqr (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:50, 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!} 21:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mateen Shareef[edit]

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

Subject clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. The subject has never elected to any office, he is only an Officeholder of the Party. He just fought a Councillor election in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corperation from a Seat.--- Misterrrrr (talk) 14:59, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spokesperson of Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee and State Secretary of Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee are not elected offices thus fails WP:NPOL and Councilor is a very local office, In India, it means Member of a City Council from a small area. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:28, 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 delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trindade Island UFO hoax[edit]

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

Three well-dodgy sources, really? Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Paranormal, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing definately dodgy. -Roxy the dog 16:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many sources describing this event/case/thing as either a hoax or A Real UFO, but none of them are outside the unreliable UFO bubble. It just doesn't seem to be notable, at least not anymore and not like, for example, this, so deletion is consistent with WP:N. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article are either unreliable or primary, and I can't find anything better online. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The incident is interesting, but sadly, proper sourcing is not available. TH1980 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 01:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Does not appear to pas WP:GNG, coverage in very niche sources of dubious reliability - "credible UFO news and information", meh. I have serious doubts either of those sources meet WP:RS. If anyone disagrees, do let me know and we can discuss them at WP:RSN. That said, the incident, better searchable under the photographer name, is mentioned in some sources found in Google Scholar: [8]. So there is a chance this could be rescued, if stuff could be verified with RS that meet WP:SIGCOV --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless of course RS are found that meet GNG. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any reliable sources that discuss this topic. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to unreliable sources that fail WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:57, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Bashhysa[edit]

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

As playing in an WP:FPL is no longer relevant in terms of notability, I can't see a reason to keep this article. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. No hits in Google News or ProQuest. A search in DDG yields only database sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 19 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. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tharun Moorthy[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as a director and writer. Yes there is coverage. But it is in the form of promotional interviews and these do not count towards notability. Coverage from reliable sources such as The Hindu is primarily focused on the subject's second movie and there is not enough independent, in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG for inclusion of this article to the main space at this time. Additionally, the article was created by a blocked sockpuppet who has a history of engaging in undisclosed paid editing and promoting articles. Akevsharma (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Kerala. Akevsharma (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For some reason, Akevsharma has something against this article subject and has been trying to block my editing of it every step of the way, including from when it was a draft. While it was originally made in short form by a sockpuppet, I rewrote it from scratch, turning it from this to the current article you see today. Their constant referencing to the original editor and ignoring my work is honestly insulting. As for their claims about the sources, they're just blatantly incorrect. The sources include some quotes from the subject, but are written about how the subject made the films and the inspirations behind doing so. You can see that clearly in the very The Hindu article that was brought up. They are not question and response interview articles as Akevsharma is implying. Silver seren^C 17:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I also note that Akevsharma appears to have purposefully timed this AfD submission in order to interfere with the article going on the Did You Know section? The nomination for it was approved and moved to a prep area yesterday. The article has been out of draft for nearly a week, but they suddenly decide to now file this AfD? Silverseren^C 17:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I hold no personal ill towards you or this topic. The creator of this article was confirmed to be a sock ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SuhailShaji786/Archive#13_January_2023 ) yesterday and I was waiting for the confirmation. Otherwise,this article would have been easily deleted under the G5 criteria earlier. You may want to investigate the history of the account using the link provided. ( https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Window369 ) Additionally, I would like to note that this article is part of a group of promotional articles created by this sock farm. But that is not the reason for the nomination and this is not the venue for a sockpuppet investigation. I have nothing personal against you or this subject.
- I understand and appreciate your efforts to improve the article, however, I want to make it clear that I am not taking any of this personally. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Based on my analysis, I believe that the sources used in the article primarily focus on the movies directed by the subject and do not meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:GNG. The director in question has only directed two movies so far, and they do not meet the requirements of being a notable director and filmmaker.
Akevsharma (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst I note GNG's words on promotional content - "nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity" - the fact is that directors will be found in newspapers more often around the time a film is released than at other times. It's clear that three major newspapers have provided what looks to me to be significant coverage. AfDs are judged on the notability of the subject, and not on the (in this case) questionable origin of the article, and so the extended reiteration of the origin has no place in this AfD, not least since a different and independent wikipedian has rewritten the article from scratch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:35, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwood Academy (Abu Dhabi)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, now closed and no significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This would be an A7 if it didn't exempt schools. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NSCHOOL. RPSkokie (talk) 17:08, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Faith, Hope[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. I've only found passing mentions such as: attendance of a protest during the 2022 North Kosovo crisis, announcement that they will take part in the 2022 Belgrade City Assembly election (they ended up placing second to last with only 5,000 votes), an anti-government event that was organized by its leader (Nemanja Šarović) and the announcement that Šarović formed this movement. Additionally, this movement has not been represented in any legislature since its foundation, and it seems to entirely be focused on the actions and announcements of its leader (its facebook page can be also seen as proof of this besides these sources that I've listed). Vacant0 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Serbia. Vacant0 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 31 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!} 07:40, 7 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!} 08:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no reliable sources, google comes up with no reliabliltity on this group.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:36, 20 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 Trial of Hamid Nouri. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Nouri (war criminal)[edit]

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

Content forking of the Trial of Hamid Nouri Sunfyre (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sunfyre (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hamid Nouri redirects to Trial of Hamid Nouri. TompaDompa (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Hamid Nouri already redirects to Trial of Hamid Nouri, and there doesn't seem to be any independent notability about this war criminal. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trial of Hamid Nouri. This is a WP:NOPAGE case: we can exercise our "editorial judgment" and avoid having duplicative articles about Nouri and his trial. If the trial article eventually grows so long that a split is necessary, we can reconsider at that point, but until then this stand-alone article isn't needed. I think a redirect is a harmless alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:09, 21 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!} 07:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verona Berisha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Europe, and Kosovo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:28, 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!} 07:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agnesa Gashi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Europe, and Kosovo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:28, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Max Albert[edit]

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

Vanity page, doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional BLP that fails WP:BASIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero sourcing in RS; most of what's in the article is social media for sourcing. Non-notable film projects either, with no critical attention. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails notability criteria. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:42, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice of the Philippines (season 3)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject was restored multiple times as redirect, no confirmation from the network about this. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references (WP:Before shows no good references) so fails WP:GNG. Also WP:CRYSTAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No idea why this wasn't deleted back in 2018 since there are no confirmation that it will take place. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Effectively a WP:HOAX. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:24, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of DNA sequencing services[edit]

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

This was tagged by Jtamad on December 31 with the edit summary Article is out of date, poorly organized, mixes personal DNA testing companies with B2B companies, nothing on talk page for 5 years. Comment from someone from ISOGG: Personally, I would scrap that page and start over. So maybe find what pages reference it (if any) to get a context to include. The writers are very confused. They mix sequencing with microarray testing. They mix personal / consumer (DTC) with medical labs only accessible to other medical facilities (B2B), as well as strictly equip [truncation in original]. They also posted the following on the talk page:

Comment from someone with ISOGG: Personally, I would scrap that page and start over. So maybe find what pages reference it (if any) to get a context to include.
The writers are very confused. They mix sequencing with microarray testing. They mix personal / consumer (DTC) with medical labs only accessible to other medical facilities (B2B), as well as strictly equipment suppliers. Many are not in business. Some are only available to university researchers with grants, etc. You would almost have to get the customer list of every equipment manufacturer to finish the list.
Sometimes the ISOGG Wiki is better (for DTC only). Sometimes my site : start with the glossary to explore (https://h600.org/). Or start your own. That is how my sites start. When I cannot find anything adequate. But likely a new page at Wikipedia is best (if not already existing) and then request that page be deleted. JuanTamad (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

On top of their reasons for deletion, this should be deleted for the same reason as my nominations of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of ADC software/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of PDF presentation software/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of enterprise search software (2nd nomination) /et al, as a list of primarily redlinks which amounts to a WP:NOTDIR violation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is not actually clear what the focus of this article is supposed to be. It's very dated. Unless one of the original authors can explain their aim, it should be recreated with a more meaningful title and greater precision. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not a business directory. As it stands, it looks like a customer-guide, analogous to those tables that appear for "best anti-virus software 2022", with features ticked or crossed so you can choose whether you want a VPN or can supply 5mL of blood. It's also incorrectly named; humans aren't the only things with DNA worth sequencing. And it would be impossible to keep this list accurate and up-to-date without enormous quantities of COI editing. Elemimele (talk) 22:46, 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 redirect to Wire drawing#Drawing dies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cemented carbide drawing die[edit]

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

This article is not encyclopedic. For example: the first phrase does not explain what a cemented carbide drawing die is. I suspect the article is a partial transcript of the only reference mentioned, which is a primary source. The article should be deleted as per wp:primary. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wire_drawing#Drawing_dies. No evidence that this particular type of die is sufficiently notable to require its own article. The one reference listed does not appear to be a primary source, but it's also in Chinese, so I'm not completely certain, as my Mandarin is limited to yelling at my cat. PianoDan (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably a good idea. A redirect to Cemented carbide#Other industrial applications may also work. I checked the Google translation of the abstract. The research is about failures and therefore I suspect that at a miminum the section on Precautions is primary material and directly copied from the reference and may constitute copyvio. Maybe the topic warrants a separate article (there are lots of chinese manufacturers announcing the product) but this article is not it, I am afraid. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two suggested redirect possibilities. Seeking other opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wire_drawing#Drawing_dies. While cemented carbide is cool, drawing dies are cool, and cemented carbide drawing dies are cool, I don't think this really makes it to being a standalone article. There is at least a few paragraphs of usable content here, which could (and should) go somewhere else. It seems to me like the provenance of this article is that somebody slapped it together real quickly so that they could attach the external links (which are all to sellers of cemented carbide drawing dies!) jp×g 00:02, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonita Lontoh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Someone keeps trying to recreate this article after it was previously deleted via AfD for notability and poor and misleading sources. Being an executive does not equal notability. Pasting an updated version of my initial AfD below...

Reason #1: Not notable coverage under WP:NBIO. Some limited coverage of this person but very limited in-depth media coverage. Of the meaningful coverage of Sonita Lontoh, it's almost all from questionable sources like alumni blogs, conference speaker bios, "news sites" that don't appear to have true editorial oversight, and friendly puff pieces. Other coverage of this person is entirely based on information provided by the subject and fails WP:IS. Subject did get coverage in Tatler Indonesia but that's a gossip mag and not a source for quality technology coverage.

None of these articles establish this person as a notable contributor in their field and just include a quick snippet/quote from this person off topic from their professional contributions.

Reason #2: Many details lack verifiability. Many of the details in this article are not verifiable and fail WP:NRV. All the sources seems to be copy-pasting the same biography without any independent reporting or verification.

The detail about John Kerry is not cited from any neutral source and doesn't state an official event or date. I cannot find WP:IS source for this.
I can't find a single IS verifying that she spoke at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit. There is only a local news program and a PR press release from her own company. Did she speak about? Is there a recording? Anything else that verifies that this actually happened and that it was notable?
For the TechWomen role, I cannot find a source for this that not a bio of Lontoh. She was personally recognized by Hillary Clinton for TechWomen??? Where is any WP:IS that can verify that? You would expect at least one IS if Clinton were to give this recognition to her work. The fact that the Tatler source claims this calls the entire source into question.

As a result, this article likely doesn't meet WP:BLP.

Reason #3: Some claims that appear notable at first glance are not that notable:

The TechWomen is a program that anyone can sign up to be a mentor for; there's an online application. See note above about committee role.
The Asian Hall of Fame award doesn't seem notable as there is not many if any WP:IS coverage on this award. It might just be starting out or something because Google returns mostly PR Newswire press releases.
Same is true for the Global Emerging Leader under 40 award. Google doesn't seem to return much of anything for this

Ew3234 (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the first two blocks of References. They are mostly interviews and profiles. There is a single ref that could be counted as secondary, but it a partial interview and is borderline. A before turns up lots of similar coverage. I think this is the second time the article has been created, which indicates either a coi or a UPE. She is on the MIT’s Notable Women Alumni list, which doesn't mean a lot. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 12:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because this discussion is not eligible for Soft Deletion due to previous AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty well explained above. Sources are all PR pieces, interviews or pieces where she's mentioned in passing. PR pieces are a large part of the Google results I bring up. What's above nicely sums it up. It's a Delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 04:10, 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. This is a pretty messy discussion, with the majority of opinion being very tentative preferences in one direction or the other. Given the split is almost down the middle, the fact there is a legitimate difference of opinion about whether SIGCOV is met, and the fact this has been relisted a wild 4 times just to get to this point, I think this is the most appropriate close. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Nova[edit]

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

I used the PROD process and it was reverted, so I am taking this to AFD as the next logical step. My comment was: No reliable independent sources to provide WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE shows that this does not even have reviews on Metacritic, which would be the minimum. Jontesta (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jontesta - Having a review on Metacritic is neither here nor there, especially as they tend not to include non-English content to the same extent as English-language. I see a lot of coverage in the article but it seems to mostly be previews in sources I have no knowledge of - in might be a good idea to say if these are reliable sources or not. Rock, Paper, Shotgun had a preview, and is considered a reliable source, but reading it it appears to be based on screenshots and the preview video, so possibly this is just PR anyway? This Italian site appears to be a pass for WP:NEWSORG based on its editorial staff and had a full review, so that's at least one instance of SIGCOV for the actual game. This French site had a full review and at least has an ISSN number. This is another French site that had a substantial review and appears to have an editorial team (and thus is a pass for WP:NEWSORG). I'm leaning keep here but would like to hear your thoughts. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unconvinced by the sources presented, and whether they are WP:SIGCOV or reliable. I believe it fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the secondary sources found. It seems we have two full reviews. (For the third, is the wargamer.fr link correct?) Daranios (talk) 11:46, 2 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!} 05:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the reviews, which appear to be from organisations that are WP:NEWSORG passes. FOARP (talk) 10:06, 7 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!} 07:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I do not know if this can pass GNG source. But it surely is something.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HelpingWorld: That is not listed as a reliable source, so you'll have to provide evidence it is editorially curated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a routine announcement based on a teaser trailer, being dependent on quotes, and then proceeds to a gameplay-only summary. I don't think it's WP:SIGCOV, whether it's a WP:RS is also debatable. VickKiang (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the article at present offers 5 sources. Of those, only two (IGN and Destructoid) are reliable, and only the Destructoid one has any sort of actual content (versus a repost of a promo trailer.) Of the sources offered in this AfD, the Rock Paper Shotgun is definitely solid. But that still leaves us with a paucity of sources. I don't think either the WarGamer.fr or IlVideologico sources count for demonstrating notability (Videologico came up just recently on the WP:VG Reliable sources list, and I laid out why I don't think it can count as an RS there.) I don't think SIGCOV in enough publications has been met to pass the GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Fuchs and his parsing of the sources. A game article doesn't always need reviews to fit the WP:GNG, but the other sources are unfortunately thin. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a rare 4th time (sorry for this). My close of Delete was challenged at the beginning of January and I agreed to relist it without realizing that the discussion was already relisted three times. But I offered so I'm relisting this to let a different administrator come to their own, independent decision on this discussion so that's what I'm doing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a review at TechRaptor, which is situationally reliable and a short preview at GamePressure which seems to be a WP:RS. I'm not especially confident of the reliability of other sources FOARP found, but the Rock Paper Shotgun reference has some critical commentary and might be SIGCOV. Nevertheless, overall notability is probably quite borderline. VickKiang (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just passes WP:GNG slightly. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this discussion should probably be closed as no consensus instead of delete, and added a few refs to the article. That said I am at neutral to weak delete. I've added a source assessment below for my two cents. The partially sites IMO can go either way and I can see both the keep and delete arguments. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://techraptor.net/gaming/reviews/pax-nova-review		~ Per WP:VG/RS TechRaptor is of inconclusive reliability.	Full length review	~ Partial
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/pax-nova-hybrid-4x-hex-strategy-debut		Listed as WP:RS	~ It seems to be a preview with some information based on screenshots, which indicate routine coverage. However, there is some analysis and comparisons with other games, so this is IMO debatably WP:SIGCOV	~ Partial
https://www.destructoid.com/pax-nova-looks-like-a-beautiful-combination-of-stellaris-and-alpha-centauri/		Per WP:VG/RS, "Like other blog sites, some content may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such". The author also edits in another non-RS site with no staff page or policies, so I see insufficient evidence for subject-matter-expertise	~ Mainly gameplay recount (which is routine), but the author has some informal analysis	✘ No
https://www.ilvideogioco.com/2020/04/28/pax-nova-la-nostra-recensione/		~ Participants in the recent VG/RS discussion had no clear consensus on reliability. Has a basic staff page with unclear indication of subject-matter-expertise, there is also no editorial policies. I would normally consider this as unreliable but given that another participant in the VGRS discussion found some WP:USEBYOTHERS there might be more in Italian, so I'm not writing this off as clearly unreliable but it's IMO a situational source.	Full length review.	~ Partial
https://www.wargamer.fr/beyond-the-rift-prochain-dlc-pour-pax-nova/	This is not a full review but instead an announcement, primarily quotes from Pax Nova 1.3.2 Released And Beyond The Rift DLC Announced!, including non-independent lines such as "We’ve been working on this for quite some time and we’re really excited to finally announce it in more detail and give you a quick rundown of what you can expect."	I could not find staff nor editorial policies (correct me if I'm wrong) in the translated version.	This appears to be a routine announcement instead of a full-length review, though the URL might have been incorrect. Ping me if a full review can be identified.	✘ No
https://game-guide.fr/275917-pax-nova-le-chemin-vers-la-victoire/		Has a basic staff page with no clear subject-matter-expertise. The website's copyright reads the following, © 2011-2021 - Association Clamidra - Wordpress. Wordpress blogs are generally unreliable unless clear editorial process or SME can be demonstrated, which is likely not the case.	Detailed preview.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete. I'd remind participants that multiple sources need to meet every criterion of SIGCOV; and at the moment, the most reliable source does not provide content that I consider substantive (rockpapershotgun, unless I'm missing something, didn't even have access to the game) and the others I would question the reliability of. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:18, 21 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) 03:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahfoud Bouabdallah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:21, 20 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nacereddine Bacha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelkader Bakhti[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Benaissa (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Hacene[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zineddine Debieb[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:26, 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 delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Zerroukhat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find sources to suggest subject is notable. Please ping me if sources are found. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:26, 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 delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ouissam Mokrane[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:25, 20 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Baroudi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:26, 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 delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Ali Ammoura[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; I can only find routine stuff like this 2014 transfer announcement. Jogurney (talk) 21:32, 19 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!} 02:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farès Boudemagh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:25, 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!} 02:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Walid Ferhat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:25, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alymayyan[edit]

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

It has been two years since the rewrite notice has been put on this page and nothing has changed. The page has broken grammar (in some places it is unreadable) and its sources are too general. Some sources turn up no search results, and there's no relevant results relating to the topic (ancient history?) when searching up "Alymayyan". Think this fails WP:GNG.

May have been a poorly translated version of Elymais considering the image used in this page is the same as the other. Taiwanesetoast888 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Middle East. Taiwanesetoast888 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete The page is so badly written that it's probable that the page is just a joke. Mucube (talk • contribs) 02:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hard Delete. There's no evidence outside of this page that this topic is real, and the writing is so bad I was embarrassed to read it. WesSirius (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a machine translation gone bad... I'm not even sure what it's supposed to be about. If the map wasn't there, I'd have no idea where this kingdom/political entity is located. I don't find any sources, at all. Oaktree b (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless at least once source can be found or added, which seems unlikely, given the lack of edits, the article should be deleted. StarryNightSky11 ^☎ 05:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How this page survived 10 years is beyond me. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 06:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(with regret) Delete -- As far as I can tell this is an article about a state attempting to be independent about 2300 years ago. This is potentially a notable subject, unless we have an article on it elsewhere. But the article feels like a fragment extracted from the midst of another article, so that it lacks a meaningful start or conclusion. In consequence, the only solution (unless rescue is undertaken) is TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is so bad that I'm just going to delete out of WP:TNT Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:13, 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!} 02:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzi Louanas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:24, 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 merge to Slovak–Hungarian War. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons employed in the Slovak–Hungarian War[edit]

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

Completely uncited. The Slovak–Hungarian War only lasted eight days so there isn't much potential for this page. Mucube (talk • contribs) 01:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mucube (talk • contribs) 01:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Hungary, and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The war only lasted eight days. A totally unreferenced article about weapons used in such a war does not meet our notability guidelines IMO. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 06:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've thought more about it, I'll move my !vote to merge into Slovak-Hungarian War if sources are found. If no sources are found, delete. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 07:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Slovak–Hungarian War or delete. If kept the lead should be amended to say a little more about the war, which took place in March 1939. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zando[edit]

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

WP:PROMO page lacks in-depth sourcing. Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT. Novemberjazz 00:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and New York. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Am I missing something? I’ve checked the sources and they’re reliable sources. If they’re promotional (which I doubt), move it to draftspace. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I see two sources that appear to pass WP:ORGCRIT, though I wasn't able to access the Publisher's Weekly sources.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
NY Times (2020)	Interviews of executives are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability.		The source discusses the subject directly.	✘ No
Hollywood Reporter	Interviews of executives are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability.	value not understood		✘ No
The Atlantic	The Atlantic is partnered with Zando.		The article discusses the subject directly.	✘ No
Forbes	Interviews of executives are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability.	Forbes staff.	The article discusses the subject directly.	✘ No
NY Times (2021)	Provides independent secondary analysis.		Discusses the subject directly.	✔ Yes
LA Times	Provides independent secondary analysis.		Discusses the subject directly.	✔ Yes
Deadline	Provides independent secondary analysis.		Trivial mention only.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

––FormalDude (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep source analysis above shows two good sources and a bunch of minor ones in RS. I'd say it's at GNG. The large number of minor sources is what pushes it over the GNG hump. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 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.