Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 27	March 29 >

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. ✗plicit 23:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian development under the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

I don't know what this article is about and I'm not sure we need it. Super Ψ Dro 23:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Bulgaria, and Turkey. Super Ψ Dro 23:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it’s a machine translation of ….things. What things I’ve no idea but it’s not coherent or useful, and does not really have a topic. Mccapra (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken here. The article's topic is pretty clear from the text, but in case this helps, the article was formerly titled "Bulgarians during the heyday and expansion of the Ottoman Empire". It's a fairly straightforward subtopic of Ottoman Bulgaria, and so it's clearly notable. However, it does have issues with the referencing: the main source is the late 90's Bulgarian equivalent of an A-levels history textbook. The somewhat flowery language typical of these texts has made its way into the first section of the article, which is probably the reason why you thought it was machine translated. – Uanfala (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete huge swathes of uncited OR/essay, all very hard to verify. Bulgarian Ottoman history is already clearly and thoroughly treated through a number of articles and while someone may one day write a specific article about Bulgaria under the Ottomans, for now I think the Bulgarian Lands can be let go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete jumble of a text with no clear citations. Seems to be already covered in other articles. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete kind of vague, considerable amount of unsourced content, and a total of only two sources. Ottoman Bulgaria is not that long, so the sourced material here can be integrated to that article. Aintabli (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before calling for friction, it is good to be at least a little familiar with the subject.

Ottoman Bulgaria is not the same, it is even radically different, for example, in the 16th century compared to the 19th century. In the 16th century, Bulgarians felt comfortable in the empire and even considered it their own. In the 19th century it was the exact opposite. That's why this topic has a separate article. --Станислав Минков (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confusing and poorly sourced. This article contains original research and written in a way that violates Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and verifiability. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is poorly supported by sources. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if arguably notable, the article would qualify for WP:TNT. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

L. Presnyakova[edit]

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

Soviet/Russian film producer. No compliance with WP:GNG.--Берберов Иван (talk) 22:04, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.--Bexaendos (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hodor Fakih[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article:

Comments	Reference
No information about subject.	1. "News from Bulgaria and the world, current information 24 hours a day" . News.bg. _
A 404 link to a PDF doc	2. ^ http://www.cermes.info/upload/docs/Maraya_BeingArabInBg.pdf[bare URL PDF]
Link marked as dead previously, now goes to a page that gives security warnings	3. ^ http://www.segabg.com/online/article.asp?issueid=746§ionid=6&id=00005[permanent dead link]
Article about Immigration in Bulgaria, mentions subject, no SIGCOV	4. ^ Capital.bg. "The Art of 'Finding the Way'"". www.capital.bg.

BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.

Article appears to be a copy of one from Bulgarian WP [1]; this article was recently tagged for notability, and does not contain any sources. // Timothy :: talk 22:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Lebanon, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof with zero cites on GS. Inadequate for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Looks as an advertisement of a long forgotten TV show. --Nk (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have only identified local sources and mere mentions, which are not sufficient to establish notability.--Bexaendos (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails to comply with WP:GNG requirements.--NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 11:02, 4 April 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. While one keep argument relies on "helpful", which is, ironically, not a particularly helpful argument, the others argue that this is a notable and appropriate subject for a list with plenty of reference material available. The "delete" arguments do not generally dispute that reference material is available, but rather argue that this is an indiscriminate, inappropriate subject for a list. Both of these arguments are reasonable, so the "delete" side achieved consensus via substantially stronger support. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game soundtracks on music streaming platforms[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Nearly all major game released these days will have their soundtracks uploaded to some music-streaming platforms. The list also relies excessively on primary sources (e.g. Twitter), and most of the sources in the articles are WP:ROTM announcements that provide no meaningful commentary as to why its release on a streaming platform is important. A brief paragraph in the video game music article would probably be sufficient to cover this topic, and I don't see the necessity of having a list. OceanHok (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Video games. OceanHok (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedents found through consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game soundtracks released on vinyl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game soundtracks released on vinyl (2nd nomination). And while I largely tried to avoid first party sources when I created the article, and would work towards replacing them, looking through the article, there are plenty of third party sources discussing the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTN satisfying sources:
Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 of them are ROTM announcements. They tell me several Capcom games and FF games are coming to Spotify, but none of them is WP:SIGCOV. I do not think GameSpot really intend to discuss streaming in its listicle as well. It simply tells you where you can stream (and therefore access) "the best video game soundtracks". GameSpot and IGN sometimes provided links to retailers, telling readers where you can buy or pre-order certain games. That doesn't mean we should create an article named "List of video game you can buy through Amazon".

If the main point of the article is to tell readers video game soundtracks on streaming platforms are rare, then the list does not show that. It appears to be a very common occurence. If the main point of the article is to tell readers that every single game these days has their soundtracks released through streaming platforms, then there is no necessity for such a list. If the SIGCOV part of the article is about Japanese developers being unwilling to release soundtracks through streaming platforms, then a list listing nearly all western games to have ever existed since 2010 is also not appropriate. It is a simple phenomenon bloated into a gigantic list. I still don't see the necessity of having this massive dynamic list that is always going to be incomplete as well. (Despite the effort of maintaining such a list, there are a lot of missing entires (e.g. FIFA17 to FIFA 19, a bunch of Call of Duty, Far Cry 4 not being listed despite the inclusion of both FC3 and FC5). This just highlights how unimportant and trivial the whole thing is. If a soundtrack's release through streaming platforms is so important, then there should be significant coverage from our RS each time it happens.) OceanHok (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, those articles are standard WP:MILL announcements. They do not indicate the idea of releasing on a streaming service is particularly noteworthy, just alerting people that soundtracks are on streaming. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OLIST as a list that is too time consuming to keep updated and serves no encyclopedic purpose besides advertising. The ephemeral nature of streaming music means the list needs an outsized amount of effort and is constantly changing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross comment because this article for the longest time is really helpful because not every game has a soundtrack on streaming services, and it goes to show how much there was a demand for VGM on streaming services for a long time. Its the same thing with vinyl as well. NakhlaMan (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. This is one of those lists that could've been about a narrowly defined topic early in the history of streaming, but since streaming is just the default way of releasing any music these days, it's become more or less meaningless. Like a list of music released on CD in the 90s or a list of movies released in theaters (but even more extreme than the latter). There is sourcing that would fall into two categories: sources from years ago when streaming wasn't the default, and the equivalent of "what's on Netflix this month" roundups. Years ago, when studios put an entire TV show's catalog on Hulu, it was novel. Now, a "list of TV shows on streaming platforms" would be a similar SALAT problem. In other words, if a video game soundtrack is released, it's released on a music streaming platform. We can't keep a list of them all. Beyond that, this isn't actually a list of soundtracks; it's a list of video games. That makes it a step more problematic per WP:CSC compared to a list TV shows available to stream because in nearly all cases we don't actually have an article on the subjects themselves. Not sure what I think of the vinyl article, but at least that's a much smaller group because releasing a soundtrack on vinyl is relatively unusual. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This content would be better served in an encyclopedic format. I think that Sergecross73 has done a terrific job of showcasing that it's notable enough that it receives coverage, but Wikipedia is not and cannot be an indiscriminate collection of information, and at this point, saying what's on Spotify would basically be the same as saying "all video game music except for Nintendo" nowadays. The vinyl examples don't fly here, because that is a clearly definable and limited category, where this would be essentially every music made in modern gaming. The content and the sources would be better served by discussing it in an encyclopedic format at video game music. Nomader (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Weak Delete: Both List of game soundtracks released on X articles strangely use the medium as a differentiator. These should be List of game soundtracks released standalone. We could split this into digital and physical lists but in my opinion a merged list would be most useful. (Side note, why do publishers use vinyl records instead of normal CDs?) IgelRM (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rhododendrites. Also, the lead suggests a narrower scope than the list title does; "on music streaming platforms," interpreted plainly, means virtually any soundtrack in existence that someone put on YouTube. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was meant to document official soundtrack releases. Vast majority of YouTube uploads are unofficial fan uploads. Much like List of PlayStation Portable games doesn't include homebrew games or the hundreds of Sega Genesis games fans have made unofficially available to play on it from downloading emulators and roms off the internet. This distinction is generally assumed in the video game content Wikipedia, though the distinction could easily be pointed out should this article avoid deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel that the sourcing is adequate, and there's no real risk of the list ballooning out of control. If it comes to that, forking the list into multiple lists (perhaps by year if it calls for it) would be fine. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion nomination opens with "Nearly all major game released these days will have their soundtracks uploaded to some music-streaming platforms" which still isn't the case for most Japanese games. Besides, the article is good to let users know of older games who finally may have their soundtracks available worldwide, for the first time, like several Castlevania series games. All the article needs is less primary sources for references but otherwise I don't see a net positive in deleting it. Jotamide (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, I'm very open to reworking the list, setting up inclusion criteria, or other clean up efforts or other alternatives to deletion. Happy to discuss here, my talk page, or the article talk page. Just let me know. Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing is fine, great even, but sourcing is not the problem. I don't even think third-party coverage of the concept is a problem (that would justify. The problem is that game soundtracks on music streaming platforms is simply not a defining characteristic (SALAT, per Rhododendrites). Every major release in the past few years has their soundtrack on streaming and more and more back catalogs from older games are getting added every day, which also runs into the issue of WP:NOTDATABASE (cf. ZXC's rationale that this list is functionally an advertisement for a feature of Spotify). I am not convinced that the comparison to the list of soundtracks on vinyl is anything more than WP:OTHERSTUFF. The other major 'keep' argument is that it's WP:USEFUL. I don't find either of these to be convincing. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:LISTN. LISTCRUFT. // Timothy :: talk 04:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hate to see something deleted when all of the keeps, and a number of the deletes, have noted that the sourcing is good. Whether it's closed as delete or "no consensus", I'll try to rework it into something more palatable. There's something here, it just needs some work. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 4 April 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 Lent Bumps#Crews finishing Head of the River as an WP:ATD $Salvio giuliano$ 07:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lent Bumps 2023[edit]

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

No evidence found of notability, source in article isn't independent. Only source in Google News is Varsity, which is a University newspaper. This year's activities don't seem to receive any attention from WP:RS outside the university. Perhaps older years need to be deleted as well if they have the same issues, this AfD though is only for the 2023 edition. Fram (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG, unless a suitable redirect target can be found.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 15:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lent Bumps#Crews finishing Head of the River, where the winners for this are listed. No evidence this passes WP:GNG, and the same is almost certainly true for many other years of this event. Redirect is a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep - either delete the lot, or none. Deleting just one year makes no sense William M. Connolley (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them might be notable, but this one isn't. And if you bundle too many together, it will always end up as a procedural keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. So nominating some separately like this is perfectly sensible, and WP:OSE isn't a valid keep reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is quite weird to have Category:Lent Bumps results with all these detailed stats. Maybe we should consider merging it with some kinda summarizing. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that it meets WP:GNG. Perhaps the other years are not notable either, but that's not the issue here. Nigej (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nigej and one15969. I suspect many other examples of this aren't notable either, but we can deal with those in due time. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:19, 2 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SupplyHouse.com[edit]

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

Article looks to fail wp:org citations apear to be limited to non-independent or routine coverage. From looking I have been unable to find independent secondary coverage but I have been able to find press-releases (new facility, fires etc.) and sponsered guides.

Previously tagged for A7 as I couldn't see a claim for notability - declining admin recommended AfD Carver1889 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Carver1889 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources as all ROUTINE, promo, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 05:13, 4 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uzair Aziz[edit]

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

Wikipedia has established criteria for notability for biographical articles. According to these criteria, a person is generally considered notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Based on the information provided in the article, it is difficult to determine if Uzair Aziz meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. More information about his work, such as his notable projects, exhibitions, or awards, would be necessary to evaluate his notability. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional page, photo gallery and promotional blogposts sources, nothing at all in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly do not pass WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Infact this article seems to be drafted by an inexperienced editor; excessive spelling and grammatical mistakes, confusing sentences. The references are a result of paid PR. Except the fact he does photography, didn't find anything to read what is special in his photography or about any particular style.Khorang 20:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:PROMO with very sketchy references. I don't see a way to turn this into an acceptable article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:PROMO per above. // Timothy :: talk 05:22, 4 April 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. The current state of the article is irrelevant when it comes to deletion, because AfD is not cleanup, and so is the fact that other similar articles exist, which leaves the arguments surrounding WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE and I find that the keep !voters' arguments have policy on their side. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of JavaScript charting libraries[edit]

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

Was originally PROD'd with a reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination). Tech cruft. WP:NOTDIR. WP:NOTGUIDE. UtherSRG (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. UtherSRG (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am going to quote verbatim from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination): This article suffers the same problems as the articles deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) (2nd nomination) - it's a mass of often-outdated technical detail with too little context. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: It sounds like the article needs maintenance, which generally isn't a good reason for deletion. What outdated text in the article were you referring to, exactly? Perhaps it can be updated. — The Transhumanist 09:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Wikipedia isn't a tech guide nor a product comparator. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tech product comparisons are a well-established part of Wikipedia, and don't constitute it being a "tech guide". See this search for articles starting with "Comparison of" and notice the preponderance of tech. — The Transhumanist 06:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 11:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does. In this case, it is an entire class of articles, supporting the position that this type of article is an allowed and accepted part of Wikipedia. Arguing to delete this comparison article because it is a comparison article is like nominating a list for deletion because it is a list, or nominating an article for deletion because it is an article. The Transhumanist 08:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a niche list, like the excel-addon list mentioned above. ~~Several~~ 18 of the libraries are notable enough to have their own articles. ~~Please give me a day to link to more existing articles.~~ Done. Three other articles are linking to this page. A few libraries were outdated but are now deleted.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomastvivlaren: See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. It has a lot of tips on how to rescue an article (from deletion), and reasons why a rescuable article shouldn't be nominated for deletion. The key question here is: Is the article rescuable? — The Transhumanist 09:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this could easily be renamed to List of JavaScript charting libraries, and lists are certainly something that can be included in Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straw man. None of us have any objection to the concept of lists. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since when does name calling and flinging unrelated shortcuts constitute a deletion nomination? Calling it cruft is rhetoric. See WP:ITSCRUFT, which is a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Obviously, the nominator sees no value in the article, but, just because he may never have a need to refer to the information in this meticulously crafted table doesn't mean that others won't. This is an informative list the context of which is very clearly stated in the page's title. In fact, it is being used—in a class to teach students (see the article's talk page)—this is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to be: a learning resource. The shortcuts in the nomination are nothing more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE: a careful read of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE reveals that this list does not violate those policies, which makes one wonder why they were cited in the first place. What the heck is going on here? — The Transhumanist 05:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Transhumanist (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs) — Note: The alleged canvasser (Tomastvivlaren) has been notified, and provided with a link to the canvassing policy. — The Transhumanist 09:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others mentioned above me, this is a very legitimate list. It needs to be broken vertically in two, per excessive width. Also rename to List of JavaScript charting libraries. Prodding should NEVER be used for controversial deletions! gidonb (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I proposed this for deletion back in October I saw it as no more likely to be controversial than the discussion it linked as precedent. Evidently I was wrong about that, but you can't accuse me of misusing the PROD process based on months of hindsight. I still don't understand how this is any better than the article deleted at that discussion, but probably never will. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out an error in judgment and you just confirmed it was and it was you. Don't know what you want from me. PLEASE be more careful next time! gidonb (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets CLN/AOAL guideline. The OR in the article needs to be removed along with nn entries. // Timothy :: talk 05:16, 4 April 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 Tensou Sentai Goseiger as an WP:ATD $Salvio giuliano$ 08:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rika Sato (actress)[edit]

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

The subject of the article is not notable and a WP:Before shows nothing meaningful. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Japan. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search turned up a couple of mentions of the subject along with other voice actresses. No notability has been shown using reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you check out the Japanese version of her page - https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%95%E3%81%A8%E3%81%86%E9%87%8C%E9%A6%99, she's notable as she has done tv shows, photo books, music, movies and so forth. And in general, any article that has 4 other pages in other languages should strongly hint towards notability. I don't know if I'm up for basically re-writing the article right now though.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. If you check the link above to ja.wp, it shows no references and is substituting their oown opinion for notability criteria using WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST arguments and the nonsense other Wikipedia language claim ("...any article that has 4 other pages in other languages..."). IS RS with SIGCOV alone show notability: Wikipedia in any language is not a reliable source for content or notability; if IS RS with SIGCOV sources are found inother Wikipedias they can be obviously used, but the articles themselves are in no way an indication of notability. The above fails to mention there are no sources and moves on to mistake popularity or notarity for notability ("she's notable as she has done tv shows, photo books, music, movies and so forth"). Popularity does not equal notability per WP:BIO.

An actual BEFORE in en and ja showed only promo material, database style listings, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:RS). // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tensou Sentai Goseiger, just like Ryoji Morimoto was merged with Kamen Rider Blade, due to the shows being the only things they are known for. That or Delete it altogether. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG as the subject lacks notability and coverage from reliable sources, as other editors have already mentioned above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am willing to restore the article temporarily in draft space, if anyone wants to selectively merge parts of it into other articles, such as Public image of Joe Biden or Bidenisms $Salvio giuliano$ 09:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Joe Biden gaffes[edit]

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

Per WP:COATRACK and WP:SOAPBOX, this is not an appropriate WP:NPOV article. While Veracity of statements by Donald Trump provides substantial commentary and analysis of his outright fabrication and extensive lies, this is merely a list of times Joe Biden has made misstatements in speeches, with such mundane points as billionaires paying 3% in taxes rather than 8% or that prescription drug caps he passed had taken effect already rather than in two years. Is today's addition that he accidentally called a gun by the wrong name really such a purposeful blunder? There's a wide difference between a running list of fact-checks (in the latter case, the editor simply sourcing to a transcript and a separate news article rather than something calling it a gaffe) and actual encyclopedic discussion of a pattern of lying, so I don't believe this warrants a stand-alone article or list. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage of these mistakes. Whether he did it on purpose or not is irrelevant. When he was younger he was caught lying as well. The article mentions things he lied about back in the 1970s. Click the reference search at the top of the AFD and check for "Joe Biden Gaffes" and you get ample results. [2] Dream Focus 18:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An honest politician? Wow, I've got a deal on swampland in Florida for you... Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The top sources I see are Fox News (do I really need to explain why that’s a bad source) Bustle (not a reliable source, let alone a reliable political one) and a satirical book about his flubs. They’re famous enough in popular political culture to deserve maybe a section on his article or something similar but any kind of “list of failures of X” is inherently biased and BLP violating. The Trump article is about an overall subject (Trump’s habitual extreme dishonesty) where as this is a WP:SYNTH collection of inaccurate, not-completely-honest, or outright false statements— which all politicians make. Plus the title is terrible, insulting and sounds like something off of Conservapedia. Dronebogus (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that whether he's a liberal or a conservative (i.e. whether an article criticizing him "sounds like something off of" Conservapedia or Liberapedia, or for that matter Anarchopedia or Commupedia or Monarchopedia) has bearing on whether this article meets WP:GNG. jp×g 01:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the fence about this one, we have similar lists for Donald Trump, this feels like an attack article. To keep it neutral, I'd remove the less trustworthy sources (Newsweek sure isn't). I'd prefer a more critical discussion around these foibles than just a list of xyz silly things a person has done. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
remark: i have removed the Newsweek source per the concerns raised here. as for the remaining 59 refs, only five of them are from Fox News and i have no reason to doubt their reliability, but ymmv. .usarnamechoice (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FOXNEWS Dronebogus (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Misleading WP:COATRACK. "Gaffe" != "false or misleading claims", but from the first version of this article, the latter has been the framing. The article appears to be an attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE, compiling a list of times Biden said something untrue or misleading. The only reason we have a stand-alone article on the veracity of statements by Donald Trump is because there is a massive amount of literature about the phenomenon of Trump lying, and not just criticizing specific instances (which we could compile for every politician). The title of the article, if it weren't for the actual content of the article, might be an appropriate and notable subject, but we already have two articles which cover "Biden gaffes" which could be expanded: Public image of Joe Biden and Bidenisms. (IMO the best option for the Bidenisms article, as I said in the Trumpisms AfD recently, would be to transform it into something like "Speaking style of Joe Biden", but that's a separate question.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or a selective merge to Public image of Joe Biden. The current article isn't a list of gaffes, it is a list of news articles that say Biden said something false -- and it actively avoids any evidence that the specific situations listed are important or significant in any way. I would imagine that the Neil Kinnock plagiarism incident would be in a better article on this topic. It might be possible to rescue the article, but the multiple problems in the current version are too severe to keep this as-is. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or a selective merge to Public image of Joe Biden per Walt Yoder. There are several problems, including what is considered a gaffe. --Enos733 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this who article should be deleted and selectively merged into Bidenisms. This is where most of it fits. - Enos733 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selective merge into Bidenisms, using Bushism as a model for improving that article. Selective because an exhaustive list of every time a public speaker "gaffed" is not at all appropriate. Roll 3d6 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:COATRACK and WP:SOAPBOX. 'Nuff said. TH1980 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is at a bewildering title, and frankly, it is bad. There is a bizarre juxtaposition between "saying something awkward" and "lying": even among the lies, it doesn't really distinguish between minor quibbles ("CNN thought the quote was 'misleading'") and rather flagrant lies ("Biden claimed he was a coal miner"). That said, the purpose of AfD is to determine if a topic is notable, not whether an article is crap. I feel like, given that there are fifty-nine references currently in the article, it is probably safe to say that the subject of this particular president saying stuff that isn't true is fairly notable, at least compared to our actual standards and policies on notability. jp×g 01:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is indeed to decide whether the subject is notable, but we have a title about one subject and an article about another. Which one is your keep !vote for? If it's gaffes, how does that reconcile with the content? If it's lies, which are the best articles that treat the lies as a group such that we pass WP:NLIST and WP:NOPAGE, of the sort that justify the notability of e.g. the veracity of statements by Donald Trump article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not nominate this on notability concerns; yes conceptually it would pass GNG that there is coverage of gaffes and misstatements, but that does not mean that such a topic is otherwise appropriate for an article. AFD is not just for determining notability, and this page is not in compliance with other policies; likewise per WP:NOPAGE, others have identified other pages that could cover these general concepts with a degree of notability. Reywas92^Talk 02:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST, stinks of political POV. Unless sources can be shown that this subject has multiple non-POV IS RS SIGCOV, covering it as a group, it should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 05:41, 4 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Anderson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Majority sources are passing blog-style mentions of projects she has been involved in. WP:BEFORE search reveals little. Skipple ☎ 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ice hockey. Skipple ☎ 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Gsearch opens up with obituaries, that aren't for this person I think. This reads like a resume in prose; working with big name sports franchises isn't notable. I can't find anything for this person. "Videographer" isn't as fancy as it sounds; anyone with a cell phone posting to tiktok is basically a "videographer" these days. If that's what her notability hangs on, she isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Heck, the nom's being generous; those blogsites barely (and not always) mention the subject's name, let alone provide much of any coverage to the subject, let alone provide "significant coverage." Wikipedia is not a Linkedin page. Ravenswing 19:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear and uncontroversial fail of WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, as all of the sources are merely passing mentions, not providing any significant coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- My google search brought out more source as an artist Kathy Anderson. If is same person then the article needs to be re-written or adjusted or should be draftify instead , I can work on it if ping as a reminder. I was able to find this: She was awarded the gold medal in the Masters Division of the Oil Painters of America National Salon Show.[[3]]She was also part of Mark Twain's Library of Humor art show see [[4]] She is the photographer of popular Columbia Pictures[[5]]Her works is here MutualArt.com [[6]] and also this additional sources [[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]][[11]][[12]]Epcc12345 (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, that appears to be a completely different person. Around 40 years older, American, not to mention a completely different field of work. Skipple ☎ 12:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Skipple ok then.Thanks for the feedback. High regards.Epcc12345 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literature Alive[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a television series not shown to pass WP:TVSHOW criteria. As always, television shows are not "inherently" notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because they exist(ed) -- the notability test is the reception of a WP:GNG-worthy volume and depth of third-party reliable source coverage and analysis in third-party sources independent of themselves. But even on a ProQuest search for at-the-time coverage, all I can find is a couple of very short blurbs confirming that this existed, not adding up to anything like enough coverage to get this over WP:GNG. (For added bonus, this was a conflict of interest violation all along, per the creator's username.) Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like Bearcat at last found some sort of sourcing, I can't get any hits on this "thing". Some literary festivals, nothing for a TV program. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got a lot of festivals too. I should clarify that I added "Bravo" to the search string to cut the noise and boost the signal, which got me the couple of blurbs. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The program sounds interesting, but the dearth of reliable coverage shows a lack of notability beyond, perhaps, a local level, or, at most, a regional one. TH1980 (talk) 00:01, 2 April 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan White (motivational speaker)[edit]

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

I moved this to draft, but was reverted, and we are apparently supposed to then take it to AfD instead of draftifying again (even though AfD is not cleanup). Anyway, I moved it to draft as it is a rather hagiographic piece about a person where the sources show a different picture (though it is not always easy to tell which Ugandan sources are reliable and which may be a government mouth piece, as Uganda isn't the most democratic and free society). Things like this or this or this. It should be moved to draft to first make this a WP:NPOV BLP instead of this one-sided version, and only then be allowed in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uganda. Fram (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears promo, I can't find sourcing for this person. I'm not aware of which Ugandan news outlets are RS to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problems and I contacted the person to prove his recent status. I may be over trusted that guy, who sent me enough proof for his activity. I think the article should be reviewed by some Ugandan admin. He claims he was extorted by some people. I will accept any decision but let us wait for some neutral view in that complicated country. Drjmarkov (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is another article about it, which should proof his status here [13]https://mbu.ug/2020/05/26/i-made-you-lie-i-am-sorry-stella-nandawula-apologizes-to-mom/

here [14]https://www.routineblast.com/vivian-mutandas-mum-trashes-daughters-allegations-against-bryan-white-says-someone-is-using-her-listen-to-audio/

and here [15]https://mbu.ug/2023/02/03/socialite-bryan-white-announces-return-dates/.

I suggest to seek point of view of person from Uganda, who can tell are these sources reliable, because I wanted to write a biography of a good man. Drjmarkov (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made some styling improvements and added new information about the person and his foundation.--Drjmarkov (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say the information from Ugandan sources is not enough. Uganda is an English speaking country and the English Wikipedia serves also for it and not all the stuff, happening in Uganda is expected to be published in American and European sources. Drjmarkov (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Press freedom and government control over media is a significant factor in determing if a source meets WP:IS, WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 06:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promo BLP fails GNG and BIO.

Agree with @Drjmarkov: on move back to mainspace so this can be deleted; they have found all the sources possible to the article, and no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth has been added. Since a complete BEFORE by the author showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, nothing else is likely to be found showing N.

The authors comments above I contacted the person to prove his recent status and because I wanted to write a biography of a good man. show there is contact being the article subject and author, and the POV bias of the author.

BLPs are not a "wait and see if sources appear" circumstance. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 06:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem about contact with a living person. And also I can't see bias, when there are sources. And they do not appear, they just are and they aren't new. I don't think there are many philanthropists in Uganda and helping the poor Ugandan people is always a good cause. I get the feeling that there is a tendency to delete every new article about living person, especially if they are young and they aren't athletes. In that situation I can't see how an article about a politician can stay if there is always controversy around their name. I can't see why you don't leave the article to be reviewed by someone from Uganda or Eastern Africa at least and not to say that African people are insignificant because only African media write about them. Drjmarkov (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some resources to answer your questions.

Please read WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT. (neutrality)

Then read WP:N, and for biographies read WP:BIO, WP:BLP. For other types of article see WP:SNG. (notability)

Finally read: WP:V, WP:IS, WP:RS, and WP:SIGCOV (sourcing)

Any questions you have can be answered at the WP:TEAHOUSE

If you are going to edit Wikipedia, especially creating articles, you need at a minimum to undestand the above. It will take time to learn them, but your time will either be spent productively learning about the above, or wasted here at AfD. // Timothy :: talk 08:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you have seen, or maybe didn't. I have created multiple articles, but not very soon. I know the Wikipedia policies. And that is why I ask you - why a mediocre soccer player can have an article and a person, who helps poor people cannot. Is the mediocre soccer player significant enough if only the fans of his team might know about him or not. And if a person, who have attracted attention of different Ugandan media and is obviously well-known in Uganda, is not significant enough and enough for who? I don't have any conflict of interest, since I live in Bulgaria and I have never met this man personally. Yes, there are accusations against him and they are mentioned in the article. After there are articles for convicted murderers in Wikipedia, then some unproven accusations of sexual harassment won't be a problem. I see bias here against people from "insignificant" countries like Uganda and like my own country Bulgaria. You say the sources are unreliable, but which Ugandan sources are reliable, do you know them. And as the things are going I might continue to abstain from creating articles after not a single African editor did not said their opinion. I see here people only from USA and Canada. The policy to delete an article, without collecting opinions from people, who are better informed in the matter is the thing that will discourage to write articles. I have created multiple articles about the administrative division of Afghanistan and even citing a lot of sources I had these discussions. Now these articles evolved, after I created them, but I was one of the first writing about Afghanistan. Drjmarkov (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could have just ignored your reply, but I took the time and offered a newish and infrequent editor (16 years 4 months old, but with only 2,213 edits) some good advice; now it’s your choice what you do with it and you can experience the results accordingly.

I've tried to be polite, but here I will be direct: You have been on Wikipedia long enough to know when active experienced editors give you advice about an article, you should probably listen to it. Fram is a very experienced editor, and you can judge me for yourself. But I am telling your directly: Your comments above show that you do not understand notability sourcing for biographies of living persons. Other types of articles often do economize on referencing and notability and get away with it, but WP:BLPs cannot: either they have the proper sourcing for both content and notability or the article (or the improperly sourced content) is deleted. There is no wait and see attitude when articles or content about real people living real lives for which a Wikipedia article could have real world repercussions.

A final reason why I stopped to give you advice is you are AUTOPATROLED and as such you should understand BLP much better than you apparently do. // Timothy :: talk 10:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being polite and also direct. I see how the things are going and also I see how the things have changed here. I will stay away from that discussion and from Wikipedia as I did before. Drjmarkov (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Shares[edit]

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

Not notable, mostly original research; no reliable sources mention this scheme, and this has been the case for over a decade White 720 (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Site appears to be defunct and I can't find anything about it at this point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Websites, and Hong Kong. Skynxnex (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article text is predominantly speculative around this firm and possibly related others and their conduct, which would fall under WP:ILLCON. I am not seeing reliable sources which demonstrate lasting notability was attained here. AllyD (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network#Newscasts. ✗plicit 14:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RPN NewsCap[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2015. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network#Newscasts SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like a fine idea. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network#Newscasts per WP:ATD. No hits on either GNews or GNews archives. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator, I am not opposed to a redirect. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network#Newscasts. Fails WP:NTV per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Lasky[edit]

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

All sources are primary, except for one very passing mention. No better sources were found online. Doesn't seem to be notable yet, just very productive.

Also nominated is Cam Lasky discography. Fram (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. Fram (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person is not notable. ImperialMajority (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cam Lasky is an important figure to many people who share an interest in Japanese music and culture. Removing his information from Wikipedia would be a significant loss to his fans and to those who are interested in his music and culture. Cfredricksen (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~Also, the professional-looking photo in the article was uploaded as "own work" by Cfredricksen - presumably there is some COI here.~~ Walt Yoder (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is officially published by Cam Lasky and does not constitute COI just because I uploaded it. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm13854972/ Cfredricksen (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cfredricksen: File:Cam Lasky Photo2022.png says that you claim to be the copyright holder. If you are not, please fix. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes completed. Cfredricksen (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COI comment struck Walt Yoder (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither meets WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nargis Javany[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find any significant coverage of this person. Zero hits on newspapers.com. The only real source presented is the 2012 Richmond and Twickenham Times article that basically only says where she is from and that she was going to compete in a competition. Penale52 (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like utter nonsense ImperialMajority (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, Afghanistan, Russia, Ukraine, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tik tok, instagram, facebook, then it falls off from there. Zero hits in any sort of RS. Not meeting GNG, at all. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did not find any reliable sources on her except for a profile on IMDB [16]. However, she has only one soon-to-be-released film in her portfolio.ThegaBolt (talk) 18:36, 30 March 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!} 06:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Stephens (businessman)[edit]

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

Prominent businessman, but the sourcing does not show that they meet WP:GNG. Was sent to draft for improvement, but returned immediately without improvement. Similar to Peter Baxendell, who will also be nominated for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chairman and managing director of one of the largest oil companies in the world. I think he's definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being Chair of "largest oil company in the world" isn't criteria under WP:BIO, WP:BASIC requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" to pass which the article fails to provide and unlike Peter Baxendell, this individual does not satisfy any of the three WP:ANYBIO criteria MetricMaster (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
- Being chairman and managing director of Shell makes it almost certain that sourcing will be available, probably more likely in hard copy than online given he died in 1978. In fact, one book is already cited in the article. Have you or the nominator read it to determine whether there is information about him in there or have you just assumed it's not relevant as it's a printed book and not an online source? Of course, given the not uncommon name it's not that easy to do an online search for him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a paragraph summarising a news article from 1949. Looking to add a bit more from 1967. Finding sources is proving difficult. Haven't located an obituary. Rupples (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough mentions of him in the Oil and Gas Journal in Gbooks, but I can't access them and can only see snippet view. Based on what's given already and the multitude of sources, it's passed the notability bar. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Agree he doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO but just about passes WP:GNG or WP:BASIC on current sourcing (some of which has been added since nomination). I suspect more coverage of him may be in newspapers with an emphasis on business, like the Financial Times and Daily Telegraph, but can't say for certain. Obviously had an impact at Shell but I would like to see evidence that it's been reported e.g. issues faced, strategies adopted, speeches other than on routine company results presentations.Rupples (talk) 04:46, 29 March 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. Aoidh (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Handeland[edit]

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

Football player on an amateur third tier. No significant sources in the article, only primary and databases, and what sources exist about such a low tier is not significant coverage anyway. To clarify, it's as significant as coverage about the next-door high school track meet. Geschichte (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Football, and Norway. SanemAyhan07 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not have SIGCOV. --Mvqr (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This Aftenposten article appears to potentially be in-depth coverage (some elements of an interview, but it has a byline and what looks like independent coverage), but it's paywalled. Does anyone with access have the ability to paste some of the contents here so we can evaluate it? Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish shantilal kansara[edit]

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

Promotional and lacks significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Gujarat. Mvqr (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Keep~~
~~he is only one artist who doing Indian god's Rogan painting.~~

~~I support him Koshish1917 (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Delete for promo and unsourced. I can't find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beacase this artisan very poor and uneducated so he has only worked for livelihood. But he is traditional Rogan artist Professorofcraft (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So they aren't notable then, thank you for clarifying. If they haven't had coverage in any reliable sources, we can't keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional or backlink article. Non-notable. ImperialMajority (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
this not for promo. he is real artist Professorofcraft (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you're a sock apparently, we can't take that answer. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ – The sources in the article are mostly youtube videos, but most of the videos are recordings of seemingly reliable news channels (News18, VTV News, Odisha TV, Gujarat First News) with reports focussed on Kansara. Certainly not true that nothing can be found on this artist, as a comment above suggests. small jars tc 15:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) The sock-ness of this situation has removed my confidence in my !vote. small jars tc 15:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
rogan art is rare and vanshing art, ashish kansara doing this, please keep support Professorofcraft (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is beautiful and perfect, well done man 👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1EB0:4CBA:396B:71A9:74CE:4814 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep beacase it not promotional, he poor rogan art artist, keep supporting for art lover Professorofcraft (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N, or at least WP:GNG: the problem is not whether the artist is real, or whether we should feel sympathy for him, but mostly whether there are reliable sources that focus on him. Also, please avoid bludgeoning the discussion. small jars tc 23:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find no sources for the biographical information presented. A fair amount of this article is about Rogan painting, already covered in a much better article. There are way too many embedded links. I will be removing many of the embedded links in the body of the article, and move others down to external links, where they belong. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have requested deletion of the two watermarked images in the article.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note Gosh, this is a socky discussion. I have struck through two comments above, both by socks of different people. Koshish1917 is the same as ProfessorofCraft above, who shouldn't be making multiple !votes here; ImperialMajority is someone else who shouldn't be here at all. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wormwood (TV series)[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I can't find anything much. Seems like an unremarkable single series TV show JMWt (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. JMWt (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, there's very scant mention out there to be found. Also the plot summary. Wow. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common Outcomes, broadcast by 10, ABC, Disney Chanel, with some coverage added to the page. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind giving an URL to the newspapers you cited(if you got them online)? Carpimaps (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have found this source: https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/t/wormwood-2007/15164/ From Bassie f (his talk page) 10:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that url may be a primary source - GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any sources that support WP:GNG. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this source: http://www.australiantelevision.net/wormwood/ From Bassie f (his talk page) 21:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually no coverage, and what does exist appears to be routine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:55, 28 March 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 Bronski Beat. ✗plicit 14:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Foster (British singer)[edit]

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

A brief stint as singer of Bronski Beat in the mid-'80s following the departure of Jimmy Somerville is the claim for notability made here. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage is incidental, passing mentions (mostly just namechecks) in larger pieces about the history of the band or other band members' obituaries. Other than these, Discogs and Bandcamp are not RSes. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 10:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bronski Beat. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Skynxnex (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bronski Beat. If not notable on his own, this should be restored to the redirect it was before expansion. = paul2520 💬 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with a single vote: keep. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amarnath Vidyalankar[edit]

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

This article does not have many citations and the existing ones are just some Indian Parliamentary records. I am not able to find any reliable sources primarily focused on him, he only gets some occasional mention in sources relating to his grandson Ro Khanna. Fails to meet WP:N. Mixmon (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - As mentioned by an editor, this meets WP:NPOL. I haven't noticed that.Mixmon (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Mixmon (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a possibility that the original creator of this article created this article through WP:OR Special:MobileDiff/969778416 Mixmon (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPOL as a member of both the Punjab state assembly and the Lok Sabha. Tagging for improvement is fine but it’s a clear pass. Mccapra (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I have not noticed the specific politician part, So the unverifiable information will have to be cleared up. Can I withdraw this nomination? Mixmon (talk) 12:11, 28 March 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. Aoidh (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 International Darts Open[edit]

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

Was redirected, since it has an utter lack of independent sourcing, but that was reverted. Would have draftified, but that would have been tantamount to a backdoor deletion since the creator of the article has been banned from editing Darts articles, in part for creating articles like this. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. A redirect was appropriate until perhaps the tournament began to be played, but as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 PDC Players Championship series, that might not happen. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this article is any different from any of the other articles about European Tour events that have been created over the years. The event is only two weeks away so deleting it, only to recreate it once the event has happened seems utterly pointless. Dergraaf (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it should have been left as a redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you actually objecting to? Is it the existence of the article at all, or just that it was created too early? I think once the qualifiers have taken place and the field is confirmed is a reasonable time to create the article. Dergraaf (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The tournament is about to start, it has a bunch of names who are clearly notable due to wikipedia entries here and it just seems like that if it goes today, it'll be able to be posted in 3 weeks without an issue. Maybe it was written a little WP:TOOSOON, but that may be solved before the outcome is even determined here.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something containing a list of notable people doesn't make that person notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that neither of the above keep !votes are based in policy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And KatoKungLee has also been blocked as a WP:SOCK, so their votes should be ignored as per WP:DENY. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have been unblocked, so that does no langer apply.T v x1 18:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per GNG to either 2023 PDC Pro Tour, or create a 2023 PDC European Tour and redirect these articles to - they fail to draw enough coverage for us to have an article on each one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they draw enough coverage such that they can meet WP:GNG, e.g. with reliable secondary sources, isn't that the litmus test of whether or not they "draw enough coverage"? 212.115.159.212 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, my WP:BEFORE didn't bring up anywhere near enough to meet GNG.

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this event passes WP:GNG, as all coverage is primary and/or trivial. Or redirect, if that's more appropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails GNG and EVENT. Sources in article are all primary, BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to a redirect if there is a consensus on a target, but the article should be deleted first to remove unsourced names of living persons, without deletion I do not support a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 23:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: To use your wording! It is clearly going to meet WP:GNG once it starts, or perhaps a little beforehand, just like all the other PDC European Tour tournaments do. The crime here is that it is WP:TOOSOON, rather than being fundamentally damaging. This does seem like a classic darts wikipedia trope lately; people rushing to the Articles for Deletion page, when a softer approach (finding sources, or a redirect/draft change) would achieve a desirable outcome in a less hostile manner. 212.115.159.212 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note - Superceded below now that time has passed 91.110.52.206 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would suggest that the other articles in this vein are also notable, which I don't think they are. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A point I made elsewhere in exactly the same discussion about another article - there are no rules for darts here. Rather than the constant stream of darts articles for deletion, which descend into "is this tournament notable or not", there should be an attempt to write that down on the sports notability page so that every single article isn't constantly nominated for deletion. Then at that point, people can run around deleting stuff if the consensus says that they should. 91.110.52.206 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus at this point seems to be roughly against keeping this article, but a redirect and draftifying the article have both been suggested as alternatives for deletion, so there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus about what to do about the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since the AfD has begun, there have been dozens of edits to the article. And not a single in-depth source from an independent, reliable, secondary reference.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm now changing my vote, since the tournament has happened. Rather than rush to delete, the appropriate action for editors is to find relevant sources for the material, rather than delete it because someone who came before them didn't do it already. Then if you find they don't exist, fair enough - rather than complain someone else didn't do it. 91.110.52.206 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are here that suggests this does meet GNG, if that's the case? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The absence of the sources does not mean that the article does not meet GNG. It means that either (a) People didn't look for them, or (b) People did look for them and they don't exist. Only (b) would lead the conclusion that it does not meet GNG, and thus far no one has said that the sources don't exist; only that the sources were not included in the article. This is a key distinction in this discussion; I am sure you would accept that if suitable secondary and reliable sources could be found, it would establish that it met GNG.

There was extensive discussion in similar circumstances regarding the 2023 PDC World Darts Championship. While nobody in that discussion suggested it wasn't notable, it had the same absence of secondary sources when it was originally created. Therefore, someone came along and found the sources and added them to the article. That approach could be taken here. 91.110.52.206 (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Googling found [17], [18], [19], [20], and other news stories about individual matches like [21] and [22]. So this article meets GNG if only someone would properly source it rather than rush to delete it. 91.110.52.206 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got six instances of "page not found" from those sources. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you didn't think to click "Edit" to see that they were just an error in wiki editing? Come on now. To make sure a similar mistake is not made this time: https://www.sportinglife.com/darts/news/international-darts-open-2023-draw-schedule-results-odds-and-tv-coverage-details/208386 -- https://www.live-darts.com/pdc-darts-news/european-tour/international-darts-open-2023-schedule/ -- https://www.planetsport.com/darts/news/michael-smith-dimitri-van-den-bergh-crash-day-two-international-darts-open -- https://www.darts1.de/european-tour/international-darts-open.php -- https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/other-sports/4272148/alan-soutar-peter-wright/ -- https://www.sportinglife.com/darts/news/darts-results-gabriel-clemens-stuns-simon-whitlock-in-germany/208421 91.110.52.206 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The absence of the sources does not mean that the article does not meet GNG." Closer should make note of this comment when evaluating IP's comments. // Timothy :: talk 21:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from the context that it meant the absence of them "in this article", as opposed to their absence "per se". 91.110.52.206 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 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. Article has been significantly improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heller Furniture[edit]

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

Promotional article, lacks sources meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH threshold. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. SanemAyhan07 (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is not at all promotional in tone; it is reliably cited; and it lists ten (yes, 10) reliable sources at the end, including several New York Times articles, which give substantial coverage to Heller furniture. The company is certainly notable; I'll just comment that it is described in the sources as "iconic" and "cult", in other words revered by other designers: I've added these citations to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being called "iconic" by a PR firm is not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True (and quotable). I've put this in my daybook (with attribution). However, Heller and the designers with whom the company worked (Alan Heller, really, from what I can tell from the available sources) were the source of many genuinely iconic designs from the era. The Vignelli dinnerware was ubiquitous in certain circles. The fact that it has been re-issued (yet again) almost 60 years after it was first introduced (in Italy), and is sold in the Museum of Modern Art (as well as being held in the museum's collection) should make this claim ironclad. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of any substantial coverage beyond what appear to be trade magazines or PR resources. Being "iconic" without any critical notice from the public at large, isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I've added citations to the museum collections at Philadelphia Museum of Art and Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) which both hold Heller objects. Clearly these designs are considered important enough to conserve and exhibit by major museums. Further, it isn't every company that gets major architect/designers like Frank Gehry and Mario Bellini to create products for them. By the way, I had nothing to do with this article until I saw this AfD today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The company is definitely significant in the history of design (and has collaborated with many important figures in field). The NYT obit re: Alan Heller is, in my view, sufficient evidence of the notability of the company and its founder (in fact, perhaps there ought to be an article in this encyclopaedia about Alan Heller). That said, the writing of the article as is needs considerable improvement. Would simply stripping it down to the essentials be enough to keep it here as a stub (until such time as it has been further improved)? I would be willing to devote some time to this if so. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's stubby already. The NYT sources are clearly reliable, as are the museums. One or two more and we'll be home and dry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. You've also tidied-up the messy bits considerably (my previous comment did not take this into account – apologies). I'll try to lend a hand over the next few days, time permitting. I'm also concerned about trying to conserve the photographs that the editor who created the article uploaded to commons (also see Lella and Massimo Vignelli articles). These are gems – truly important cultural history, as is evidenced by the number of museums that hold the pieces in their collection – thus it would be a shame if readers were deprived of the opportunity to see them here. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It is likely that Lella was involved in design of the Hellerware (or designed it, full stop). From, my knowledge of the subject, she led the way on three dimensional work, while he was the graphic design visionary (though they clearly worked as a pair on most everything).

Keep the article was egregiously promotional when nominated; it is better now though still somewhat promotional. But both Alan Heller and Hellerware are redlinks, and at least one of those 3 topics is certainly notable. Note [23] for an additional ref. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, used the ref; and have stripped out the commercial lists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Massimo Vignelli, the designer of Hellerware, does have an article, which also needs improvement. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the Lella Vignelli and Massimo Vignelli articles mentioned above, Vignelli Associates, and the Vignelli Center for Design Studies (as well as Unimark International) all have articles in this encyclopaedia (all of which need improvement as well). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps rename --> "Heller, Inc." or simply "Heller" (which is how the Museum of Modern Art entry reads: "The manufacturer Heller introduced the award-winning design to America in a range of colors"). Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we mustn't rename during the AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'm not up to the task of renaming articles, just thought it made sense (and would suggest doing so once the matter of the article itself is resolved). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Raziq Kakar[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Pretty promotional article, so much so that I might suspect some UPE/COI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is built on passing mentions and quotes from the subject. He clearly enjoys some renown as the initiator of World Donkey Day but I don’t think enough here for an NPROF pass. Mccapra (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by Google Scholar results he seems to have more renown for his work with camels than with donkeys, but it still doesn't look like enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. SanemAyhan07 (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NACADEMIC, resume like article, ref doesn't establish notability, brief mentions have no WP:SIGCOV. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no notability established. Jeppiz (talk) 21:10, 28 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1979–80 Auburn Tigers men's basketball team[edit]

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

Redirect was challenged as a "controversial redirect", when the article is solely sourced by 2 database entries. Fails WP:GNG as written, should have remained a redirect or drafted so it might be developed, but that's not longer an option. Also fails WP:NSEASONS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Alabama. Skynxnex (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't have time at the moment to do a fuller analysis, but the same points I raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980–81 Auburn Tigers men's basketball team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1981–82 Auburn Tigers men's basketball team likely apply here as well. Cbl62 (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like the other two seasons Cbl62 mentioned, there are plenty of sources for this one: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. There are almost certainly more, since Newspapers.com had pages and pages of results, but that alone is enough to pass GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no high-major school that should not have every season article created. They all get major press all year long.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:04, 30 March 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. ✗plicit 14:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1980–81 Auburn Tigers men's basketball team[edit]

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

Redirect was challenged as a "controversial redirect", when the article is solely sourced by 2 database entries. Fails WP:GNG as written, should have remained a redirect or drafted so it might be developed, but that's not longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~American football and~~ Alabama. Skynxnex (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable topic. The extant sourcing in the article could surely be improved, but Auburn is and was a top-level, SEC men's basketball team -- and the article is brand-spanking new, having just been created this month. A search of Newspapers.com turns up > 1,500 articles, just in Alabama, about Auburn's 1980-81 season. See, e.g., [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] [41]. Thus, I conclude that the article passes WP:GNG and needs improvement, but not deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG per sources presented by Cbl62. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources turned up by Cbl62 are evidence that the article passes GNG. In general, I would expect that a top-level Division I men's basketball season would pass GNG, given how much coverage men's college basketball gets in the US. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no high-major school that should not have every season article created. They all get major press all year long.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 30 March 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. ✗plicit 14:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jakorian Bennett[edit]

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

Contested draftification. Current sourcing is 3 routine sports coverage and a primary source. Should be in draft for development, but that was contested, so we are here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Alabama, and Maryland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No time to search now, but projected to be a 3rd-5th round draft pick, so extremely likely notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a whole bunch of articles about him if you search Google News. They should have been included: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Jakorian+Bennett&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUj_rnmf_9AhX3F1kFHfl_AX0Q0pQJegQICxAB&biw=1920&bih=947&dpr=1. Even if he somehow fails GNG or Sigcov here, which I doubt, he'll have another article up within no time since he's going to get picked for the 2023 NFL Draft.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, see for example PFN, Testudo Times, SI, The Diamondback, The Baltimore Sun, and others. And even if that wasn't enough, as KatoKungLee said, he is guaranteed to receive more when he gets drafted next month (with many sources projecting as high as the third round, Bennett is basically a lock). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if we reject a number of sources for being "bloggy" or "transactiony" there are still a number of feature articles that provide detail to meet the reuqirmeents of WP:GNG. They need to be incorporated into the article, but that's just editing issue and not a deletion issue. No problem with the nomination, because as-written the article doesn't look so good... but it's clearly a notable person.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Clearly passes GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:39, 31 March 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 Surveyor General of Western Australia. ^Complex/_Rational 14:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry James Houghton[edit]

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

Contested prod. Zero in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources. Current sourcing is only a government publication and a database. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Surveyor General of Western Australia as ATD for the time being. We have articles on other holders of this post so it is possible that this article could be restored and expanded in the future. Mccapra (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Geography, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks significant sources needed to establish notability. Several of the other articles on holders of this post were also just recently created by the same person, and these similarly lack GNG-compliant sourcing, so their existence is no basis for maintaining this one. John Sherlock Brooking is sourced to some unreliable/non-substantive genealogy pages and a facebook page. John Percy Camm and others are similar. I would ask the creator to become more familiar with sourcing to reliable and significant coverage before creating any more articles. Reywas92^Talk 17:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mccapra. Deus et lex (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Surveyor General of Western Australia: Article simply fails WP:GNG ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 04:41, 4 April 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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kadri[edit]

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

Clearly the product of UPE/COI (created by an SPA and overly promotional in tone), this article is refbombed with no fewer than 74 references and they're an impressive looking bunch at that - until you start digging down when you are faced with a series of press releases, interviews, promotional pieces and 'awards' that are as routine in the world of architecture as the trade magazines that award them. You could argue "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" on the sheer number of sources presented alone, but they are by no means reliable or independent. An architect, doing what architects do - but with clearly an unusual flair for self-promotion. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Architecture, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete carpet ref-bombing is a thing now. Wow, one of the more notable cases for non-notability we've seen. Look at all those sources confirming this person exists... Absolutely non-notable. Nothing in any sort of RS found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have taken your feedback into consideration and have made some changes to the article to ensure that it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Specifically, we have removed some of the unnecessary citations and promotional content. Our aim is to create an informative and neutral article that is based on reliable sources and provides readers with accurate information. SaabHistory29 (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most likely UPE/COI editing, without any real in-depth independent coverage.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:40, 3 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Metropolitan University's Student Learning Centre[edit]

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

Multiply draftified and blodged back into mainspace, this insanely long and detailed article about a student learning centre fails to demonstrate a pass of WP:GNG on any grounds, cites no RS-based SIGCOV and fails WP:NORG (although we are not to depend on SCHOOLOUTCOMES, one does note that "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable". This one is most certainly not to be considered notable. Redirect to Toronto Metropolitan University as an ATD or, simpler, delete as it is already covered in that article and the likelihood of anyone choosing to search for this institution as a standalone is very, very remote. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references seem to establish that this is an architecturally notable building. Coverage in Canadian Architect magazine, Building and all the other sources that are not internal Toronto Metropolitan University pages adds are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if a subunit of a university is not always notable, it passes notability as a building. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's won multiple awards for its design, and has received RS coverage for accessibility issues. Not notable as a university sub-unit, but notable as a building. [42][43][44][45][46][47] -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:28, 30 March 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. ✗plicit 14:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Women's Committee of the Liberal Party of Australia[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability, my googling seems to indicate there is little coverage of this organisation Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems notable enough. If the problem is the insufficient number of sources, then I'd be happy to add some. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has a Credible claim of significance and has sufficient sources available online that can be implemented as inline citations which I have added to the article's talk page. ––– GMH Melbourne TALK 12:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agree there is a Credible claim of significance particularly in relation to the developing role of women in Australian politics. We should be able to add further sources. Stumps (talk) 09:37, 4 April 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. ^Complex/_Rational 13:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

There has already been a discussion of whether we need this article as a stand-alone article, and the consensus was that we do not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Harry Kane. The applicable policies include Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is slow-motion edit-warring to create a list article and to blank and redirect the list to Harry Kane. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Kane as nominator, and lock the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the decision to delete this article previously (in 2021) was because he was not his nation's all time top scorer. There is a consensus in the WPF community to make articles for players who have reached this milestones and Kane has now met and exceeded such criteria. Rupert1904 (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep since there are now far more sources specifically on the subject of Kane's international goals. [48] [49] [50] (The Daily Mail is not deprecated for sport), even a parody article [51], [52]- and that was with a very quick search. Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kane is now the top scorer for the English national team, @Robert McClenon: I was trying to follow some procedure, but that all appears to have gone out the window! I now realise the history of the pages is not much difference for histmerge, move which is what I intended. However considering he is now top scorer and that is the general bar for these articles this second AfD seems completely unneeded. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Govvy - No, this second AFD is not unneeded. What was unneeded, and was harmful to the development of the encyclopedia, was the edit-warring. AFD is a consensus process, which edit-warring is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. The information is fine in the original article. Having a separate stand-alone article to hold a few tables seems like a less efficient way to handle this information. It's perfectly fine to keep it in the main article. That we can have a stand-alone article doesn't mean we must, and I'm inclined to see the better way to organize this information is to keep it all in the main article, not arbitrarily split it off on its own. --Jayron 32 17:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above from Black Kite which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rupert1904 KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the first AfD he was far from being the nation's top scorer, but now he is, so situation has changed. There is now a lot of interest in his international goals, and plenty of articles now that give partial list of goals, often in the form of his best or most important international goals. His international goals as a group is widely discussed (e.g. comparison with other top scorers, how many are penalties, the opposition he scored against, etc.), therefore the article is notable. Hzh (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple new sources with significant coverage because he has now become England's top scorer. As such, it now passes WP:LISTN, whereas it didn't at the time of the first AFD, when there was significantly less coverage of his goals. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has significant coverage, its notable Kane is England's all time top scorer and agreeing with Joseph it now passes WP:LISTN, so keep. Pinzunski (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of coverage already identified regarding his England goalscoring exploits, such as this BBC article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can we agree there is a consensus now to keep this article? Rupert1904 (talk) 09:01, 4 April 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. Keep per WP:SNOW: knowing notability guidelines and looking at the sourcing, and on top of that looking at the comments by well-established editors in the AfD, I can state with confidence that there is no way this article will be deleted. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

L'Étranger (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. References are unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djjdwetherspoon (talk • contribs) 05:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the references in the article are reliable such as newspapers The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and well known music website Exclaim and they show significant coverage about the band so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view. Also note that the nominator created Draft:L'Étranger (DJ) so they have a purpose of removing the band to maximise search results, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a sufficient number of reliable sources support the article, and there are a few more I found via a ProQuest search. As indicated above, the nominator created the currently declined Draft:L'Étranger (DJ), so this nomination appears suspicious. Mind matrix 12:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not too clear on what the nominator is talking about, either. I do see one footnote here that's admittedly not good ("Canuckistan Music"), and one that's a dead link in need of replacement, but all of the other sources are solid and reliable ones, largely from gold standard publications like The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star and Maclean's and Exclaim!, and as noted above other sources are available to replace the weak or dead ones with. The article already plainly documents, and properly sources, that they pass more than one criterion in WP:NMUSIC — the most obvious mic drop of all being #6, "an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians" — so this ain't going nowhere. It's obvious that the nominator is simply trying to clear the decks for their own personal pet topic by getting other things with similar names erased under false pretenses, so this should probably just be speedy closed on snowball grounds. The plain title L'Étranger is a disambiguation page anyway, so even if the draft does get accepted (which I suspect it won't be, given that it's mostly relying on streaming services instead of media coverage for sourcing) there still won't be any conflict here. Plus I've already ditched the bad Canuckistan and dead Canoe sources, and replaced them with some more ProQuest retrievals. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame you have that viewpoint. I've been nothing but objective about both topics here. For my sources I've listed a national newspaper, national music magazines such as DIY, Clash, ComplexUK, Resident Advisor, Vice where the topic has received coverage.

Which "streaming sites" do you speak of? Are you referring to the fact L'Etranger has had exclusive Apple Music DJ mixes? This only adds to the notability of the topic.

It seems to me that a large percentage of editors like yourself on here are elitists on an ego-trip to dismiss legitimate subjects for whatever personal grounds.

The references the topic are as legitimate as the ones used on this page. And from an objective point of view, L'Etranger the musical artist is far more notable than a short-lived punk band from the 1980s Djjdwetherspoon (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, if your guy has coverage in Vice, you certainly haven't actually cited it at all — and what you've cited from Complex is not coverage about a DJ named L'Étranger, but coverage of other people which tangentially verifies that those other people exist while completely failing to even mention your guy by either his real name or his stage name. A source clearly can't support your guy's notability if it doesn't even mention him at all.

And an Apple Music DJ mix doesn't constitute a notability claim if your source for that is the Apple DJ mix itself — you don't make a musician notable enough for Wikipedia by sourcing his music to its own presence on Bandcamp, Spotify, Apple Music, Soundcloud or iTunes, you make a musician notable enough for Wikipedia by sourcing his music to third party analytical coverage about him and his music in media.

As noted above, the sourcing in this article comes from The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Maclean's and Exclaim!. In British terms, to match that level of sourcing for your other guy you would literally need to be citing The Times of London, The Guardian, The Economist and New Musical Express — that's literally the calibre of sourcing that the Canadian band actually has, but needless to say, you haven't even come close to that in your draft.

Wikipedia is not just a directory of current topics, where people or bands lose their notability just because they aren't still as prominent today as they were 30 or 40 years ago — this is a band that had a legitimate notability claim in their day, and has gold standard media sourcing to support that they pass WP:GNG for it, which means their notability isn't up for any debate. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the clarification on why some of my sources could be deemed unsuitable. The other sources you are referring to reference aliases he has released under, and an artist he produced a record for. The sentences in my draft explain that.

I agree that the members of the band L'Etranger are notable in their own right, but that is only due to the fact two of their members went on to become members of parliament isn't it. Their individual pages would have sufficed.

The band itself wasn't notable in their day outside of Toronto and I suspect the article only exists because it pre-dates the draft system.

The band clearly must be a source of great national pride and you seem to enjoy splitting hairs - so I'll leave you to it. Djjdwetherspoon (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, while it's true that they both went on to become members of parliament later on, they were both notable as musicians — Andrew Cash had several chart hits as a solo artist after L'Étranger broke up; Charlie Angus had several chart hits with another band after L'Étranger broke up, and then started a notable magazine and then became a noteworthy activist and writer; and I notice that you didn't even try to tamp down the notability of Tim Vesely (presumably because you couldn't even pretend his continued notability had nothing to do with music.) Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is all true. They had music careers and became notable musicians after the band broke up. The band L'Etranger wasn't notable in the 1980s outside of Toronto and the page only exists because it pre-dates 2011.

Your personal investment in the topic is showing here mate and I'd argue it's hard to be objective otherwise. Djjdwetherspoon (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The band had GNG-worthy coverage about it, in gold-standard calibre sources like the two most important newspapers in Canada, in its own time, clearly passing WP:NMUSIC #1. Three members of the band stayed independently notable, clearly passing NMUSIC #6. Their most successful single was placed in rotation by MuchMusic, clearly passing NMUSIC #11.

It's over and done, and you're the one who's clearly got a personal investment, not me. You want this to go away because you think it's interfering with another topic you personally care more about, and are clutching at straws to pretend that the band doesn't have the ten hits of GNG-worthy reliable sourcing it has or the three NMUSIC notability claims it has. But also, please read WP:BLUDGEON, because you're dancing perilously close to it. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to having a dialogue about the notability of the subject and have listened to your points and agree with quite a few of them. We've exchanged an equal number of comments at this stage so I'm a little perplexed as to how I could be bludgeoning the argument?

It would be interesting to hear from a few non Canadian-Indie heads however because I suspect that could be influencing the decision. Djjdwetherspoon (talk) 23:24, 3 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yong Peng bread[edit]

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

I believe "Yong Peng bread" is kompyang. From the description of this "Yong Peng bread", it is identical to kompyang - they're both traditional, round in shape, baked with yeast, come in varieties, are still made with traditional methods, and can be kept for a long time by storing in a freezer. Also, I googled "Yong Peng bread" (with the quotation marks) and found this video. The "Yong Peng bread" depicted in this video is clearly kompyang. Lousysofa (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, China, and Malaysia. AllyD (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, delete. The single supporting source doesn't identify any such product as "Yong Peng bread", it merely states that the town of Yong Peng is famous for its Fuzhou cuisine, including "Fuzhou plain bread". That's like creating an article on "Whitby fish" based on the idea that Whitby is well-known for the high quality of its fish and chip shops. We can't even justify a redirect unless someone can find evidence that some people, somewhere, are referring to this product specifically as Yong Peng bread. Elemimele (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Yong Peng bread is not an official brand, or a well-known brand accepted by the public.The bread is made in the Malaysian town of Yong Peng, where it actually originated in China.In Yong Peng, the bread is made in a rough way, and there is no guarantee of uniformity in taste.

I don't think it's appropriate to name it Yong Peng Bread, because these breads will have other names in China, so it's not reasonable to use the name recklessly, and I suggest that they be deleted. Zhou Yuji1028 (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is too short on words and I didn't find anything special about this bread from reading the introduction, could you write more about how it differs from regular bread? Or does it have any characteristics?--Caiyayu (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there are few materials to prove the article, and there is a lack of relevant materials. That most people don't understand very well. It would be nice to add pictures and sources of evidence.GAOPEIYUN (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White Clay, Arizona[edit]

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

No evidence of a notable populated place here; maps just show a few corrals and ranch buildings. –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthie, Arizona[edit]

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

This one has more prose than most, but at the end of the day it's nothing more than a railroad junction that's mentioned in passing by a few sources. The bit about the wildlife refuge is interesting but not sufficient to support a standalone article. (Note to closer: Please delete, don't just delink, from any lists and templates) –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 28 March 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 Williamson, Arizona. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mint, Arizona[edit]

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

Unclear what this is or was, but there's no evidence of a notable populated palce here. Name does not appear on topos until 2012. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Williamson, Arizona, since that's where Mint nominally is. But yeah Mint itself is not notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for redirects as an alternative to deletion, but I'm not sure that they're a good idea when the subject isn't mentioned in the target article and we have no way of verifying what it actually was. We don't normally have redirects for ranches, wells, stock tanks, road junctions, etc which this may well have been for all we know. –dlthewave ☎ 12:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to redirect this article but the suggestion is contested so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, now that Williamson, Arizona has been revised (by me) to mention/cover it (along with the Williamson Valley vs. Mint Valley distinction), using a Mint Valley Community Organization webpage as source (which could be used also to develop the article further). I agree with dlthewave that a redirect target article should mention/cover the topic; it is no help to redirect something tiny to a topic article with scope way too large to even mention it. Here, however, Mint Valley was a similar or equal thing compared to Williamson Valley, and Williamson includes them both. I imagine there is a Mint River or arroyo or creek, corresponding to a Williamson river or arroyo or creek? Actually I was in Williamson once and somewhere in the general area I took a picture of a bridge over a dry arroyo; i think but am not sure that was actually in Williamson. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Yeah there was/is a "Mint Wash", i.e. an arroyo, per this Sharlot Hall Museum source. I'm adding a note about sources available at the Talk page of Williamson, Arizona article. And I confess I am unclear about Williams, Arizona vs. Williamson, Arizona. Williams is a town. Is Williamson a bigger area including it? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the expansion, Doncram. I agree that it makes sense to cover this under either Williamson or Williamson Valley (Arizona). Looking at the map, Williams is a different town about 50 miles away near I-40. –dlthewave ☎ 12:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (nom !vote) now that Mint Valley has been added to the Williamson article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AMCON Distributing[edit]

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

Article has no indication of notability. Ebbedlila (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject's evident lack of notability. The fact that the text has been mainly curated by a kamikaze account is no help. -The Gnome (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome:, I was thinking of going through the person's entire articles. Should I do so? Ebbedlila (talk) 16:58, 29 March 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.