Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 30	September 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kraig Noel-McLeod[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. All sources are trivial and/or stats/databases Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page clearly passes GNG based on references already on page.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitly notable. Entry in databses are signs of notability for sportspeople, especially if a player on a national team. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Ortizesp: and @Mebigrouxboy:. He is an internationally capped player with an ongoing career with some sources already. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG - none of the sources mentioned in the article or the discussion are covering the subject in detail, they are mostly passing mentions and statistical reports. The fact he was internationally capped does not bring notability to the subject. --Angelo (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there does not exist the coverage to pass GNG in this article, nor was their any better coverage from a search. All I could find were passing mentions and database listings, no significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SPORTCRIT #5 which says Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. This explicitly states that database sources are not evidence of notability. There is not one reliable source providing detailed coverage. Passing mentions like Basingstoke Gazette are the best thing that this guy gets. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Bharadwaj[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia guidelines. There is no coverage of this guy in the media in English or Telugu, yet somehow this article was created. 100% database sites and nothing else. Also, the user who created this page is only interested in creating pages for Rajendra Bharadwaj's films. Coincidence, I think not. One user, declined the draft submission, yet somehow this made it to the article space. DareshMohan (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found, and based on above, appears to be a COI. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability. Thparkth (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1997. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linn Thomas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. None of the current sources contribute towards WP:GNG. I looked for better ones and didn't find anything useful. Cheers, gnu 57 21:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sexuality and gender, and Virginia. gnu 57 21:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons given in the nomination. Being the first centerfold model to appear in both Playboy and Penthouse is not something I see as a significant contribution to the field of entertainment. This AfD is about qualifying for a stand-alone article. She already has a mini-bio on Wikipedia at List of Playboy Playmates of 1997. I moved her photo over to there. I note the other 1997 Playmates with stand-alone articles have more substantial career credits. 5Q5|^✉ 11:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1997 as she does not have enough notability for a separate article. Suonii180 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arguments all around voice concern with fully embracing either keep or delete. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Botero[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. The subject was head of an organization of marginal notability (World Justice Project). This does not mean that the person is notable independent of that organization. The page was created by employees of the organization a long time ago. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Thenightaway (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm not convinced their citation count or being Director of Instituto de Ciencia Politic is enough to pass WP:NPROF. Being former exec director of an organisation isn't enough to show notability either. Maybe could pass on WP:NAUTHOR for being a co-author if some significant reviews are found, as WJP Rule of Law Index is at least referred to in various independant sources. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He has held multiple national and international offices which are enough to pass WP:NPOLITICIAN. Chagropango (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

. The positions that he held do not appear the kinds of 'offices' that the WP:NPOLITICIAN talks about. These positions are not purely run of the mill bureaucrats, but they seem to be the upper echelon of run of the mill bureaucrats. Thenightaway (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can one tell what positions are intended by WP:NPOLITICIAN? All that is specified is national or international offices. Chagropango (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weakly...) - Meets WP:NPOLITICIAN, by a small margin. Thparkth (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhairavi (2009 film)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). No reliable sources at all nor any reviews. 100% original research and database sites. The only source with stuff is the last source but that only talks about the audio launch. DareshMohan (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass NFILM. Cannot find any GNG-compliant sources in English or Telugu. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--IndyNotes (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masks Through the Ages[edit]

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

Non-notable TV miniseries. Zero in-depth coverage located on a search. De-PROD'd without any improvement or sources added. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm not finding much either. There are a few passing mentions in the press (e.g. [1]), but my search for significant coverage came up empty, and no obvious alternatives to deletion come to mind. Glad to reconsider if someone can find sources I'm missing, but otherwise this program doesn't seem to meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't enough sources to show sufficient notability. Suonii180 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2022 (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 Benefice. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Living (Christianity)[edit]

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

Subject of the article is a major feature in the article benefice. It is redundant and inconvenient, especially considering that other articles link to this one. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICT. This article can only be a dictionary definition, and Wiktionary would be the appropriate wiki project for that. I would not oppose a redirect to benefice but not convinced one is required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Benefice. St Anselm (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete to Benefice per WP:MAD. The disambig at Living is sufficient and Living (Christianity) is a confusing and ambigious title and an unlikely search term for the idea of a "Living" in Anglicanism. Jahaza (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Benefice. I do not think there is much to merge. I do not think the reference to Trollope's novels is in fact correct. My understanding is that a living is much the same as a benefice, which might be a rectory, a vicarage, or even a perpetual curacy. The matter of holding a benefice and paying a curate on a pittance is likely to be an aspect of pluralism, as formerly practised in the Anglican church. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Benefice as an alternative to deletion, as I think this could be made into a proper article with some research. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mitchell (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the fact it still has the line "current goalkeeper for the Saint Lucia national football team" in the opening sentence from 2009, clearly considerably out of date, and that this hasn't been amended, tells me this is not someone that gained notability. Seems to have had a fairly unremarkable playing career. Not seeing how an article can be justified. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saravanan Saran[edit]

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

Fails WP:Nactor: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He has only starred in one film. The one reliable source about the film Love Guru briefly mentions him, but that film did not release. No sources about Evan Aavan. He produced and starred in one film and that does not make him notable. May have been edited by the actor himself here. Since he is not the main producer of films, he does not seem notable at all. DareshMohan (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaminari[edit]

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

In doing WP:BEFORE, I cannot find anything about this that would lead to it being notable via WP:GNG. It's a widely used gem, no doubt, but that doesn't make it inherently notable. TartarTorte 20:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 20:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I don't know if Kaminari needs its own article, but it might meet notability if discussed in reliable industry publications or websites like Computer Weekly, InfoQ, or perhaps papers have mentioned it that were published in the proceedings of the ACM or IEEE, etc. So I'm going to ask around and dig around before I decide. Andre🚐 17:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any secondary sources. Not even primary sources when you rule out things like the GitHub "references" on the page - GitHub is just the repository and those and other "references" on the page are essentially self published. The software has had oocasional updates, the last in 2021, and it looks useful as a component, but not notable for an encylopaedia article. 17:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

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 under WP:SNOW. It is clear that nobody else believes that "article is a stub" is a valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Japan heatwave[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of IP, rationale below.

Appears to be a WP:PERMASTUB. Does not appear to be able to be expanded properly. Lacks significant sourcing. All news articles found appear to be immediately during the heat event as forecasts, meaning WP:NOTNEWS also applies. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Japan. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added details from existing sources and a source from July 2022. That was enough to get it to "start" grade, thus resolving the permastub concerns. Additionally, there is no reason to assume that article expansion will cease here, it was Japan's hottest heatwave ever, there is no reason to assume there won't be future coverage. CT55555 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it is still a stub. 7 references, less then ten sentences. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was rated as start by the rater tool, this a fairly neutral assessment of the articles grade. Nonetheless, we don't delete things just because they are stubs. It passes WP:GNG so that's the main point here. CT55555 (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated tools are never without error. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is moot. I've further expanded it to a decent sizes article. The idea that this is a "permastub" I think is completely disproven, by both that and the BMJ article published today that talks about the heatwave. NOTNEWS is disproven by the BMJ article (see comment below), and by the analysis type piece from the Guardian. CT55555 (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been expanded using multiple reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding it one sentence is does not mean has been expanded using multiple reliable sources. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded by more than one sentence. And the article does have multiple reliable sources. That is plain to see. CT55555 (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I !voted above already) There is coverage in this BMJ article published today. https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2107 CT55555 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, and we have academic coverage of this event now per CT. The other concerns by IP are fixable, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Jumpytoo Talk 07:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Record heat similar to 2022 United Kingdom heat waves Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2022 (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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Belbel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Most of the sources are related to someone with the last name of Belbel with the word "in" in front of it. There are non-english sources mentioning the name however I only know English so I don't know if it's the same place. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Algeria. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This place was subject of several field studies regarding arid landscape irrigation systems. The article should be improved, but not removed.--Eranrabl (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason given by Eranrabl is exactly the same reason why the last nomination by Lennart97 (talk · contribs) was withdrawn. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Borderline. I couldn't find any legal recognition, so maybe in WP:GEOLAND this falls under [p]opulated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. However, I could only access to ref 1 and ref 3, but they are RS, coming from Journal of Arid Land Studies, and non-trivial, going into detail for the site's geography, government, farming techniques, and migration. These 2 refs are sufficient to meet borderline notability (WP:GNG needs 2 or more refs), assuming ref 2 also goes into fair detail (ping Eranrabl, Dr. Blofeld), then there's no doubt that this meets WP:GNG, but even if that's just a short mention, there's enough for borderline notability, IMHO. VickKiang (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass GEOLAND since it seems to be a settlement with census data. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets content requirements and shouldn't have been nominated for deletion the first time let alone second.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eranrabl. Dsp13 (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Quixotic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced since 2007, previously deleted through AfD, and I can't find any coverage in reliable sources that would justify an article (the only thing I could find was a very brief mention in the NYT here, but that hardly constitutes coverage). --Blablubbs (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any major coverage about him either – if reaching the finals of the DMC mixing championship 18 years ago is his most notable achievement then I don't think he's going to pass GNG. He may have worked with Lauryn Hill as a producer in 2006, but as nothing has ever come out of those recording sessions then that's not notable either. Richard3120 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh (United)[edit]

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

Speedy deletion template removed twice by anonymous editors without explanation; page not required as it duplicates an existing item. (List of chief ministers of Andhra Pradesh}. Eagleash (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, duplicate page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THIS INCLUDED CHIEF MINISTER'S OF UNITED ANDHRA PRADESH WHICH THE FUTURE GENERATIONS SHOULD KNOW . BECOZ IT'S A VAST STATE [ BEFORE BIFURCATION ] . YES IT'S THERE BUT UNITED ANDHRA SHOULD HAVE AN UNIQUENESS . Wiki3455 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is very much important for the people of Andhra Pradesh state .

It's the history needed for future generations so my request is not to delete that page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhal.sasthry (talk • contribs) 15:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate page, all information available at List of chief ministers of Andhra Pradesh. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Brinkmann[edit]

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

PROD declined with spurious reference to the deprecated NFOOTY-SNG; there is no GNG-relevant coverage of this subject whatsoever. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Cannot find anything, which has surprised me - just things like this. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. It seems that the vast majority of his career was played in the Regionalliga Nord (fourth tier of German leagues), so this isn't a player with much success. starship .paint (exalt) 06:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delte per everyone Dawid2009 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer that only made three appearances in the German third tier, and which appears to fail WP:GNG. I found this at his club's local newspaper, Ostthüringer Zeitung, but it's behind a paywall. In any event, it doesn't appear to be enough by itself to meet SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability Bruxton (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Monteleone (footballer)[edit]

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

Former professional footballer with a total three senior appearances in minor leagues and 24 minutes in the Serie B league, before moving into amateur football in Sicily and Southern Italy. I could not find any in-depth independent coverage about the subject apart from a bunch of transfer reports [2] so I would say he fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found sources like [3], [4], and [5] among many many other sources from tuttomercatoweb.com, mediagol.it, umbria24.it, stadionews.it, messinasportiva.it, tuttocalciodilettanti.com, tuttocampo.it, amarantomagazine.it, sportycom.it, calciomercato.it, sporterni.it, campaniaingol.it, bagheriainfo.it, umbriaon.it, cronacaflegrea.it. He has played in the Italian Serie B which is regarded as one of best second tiers worldwide and has an ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first one, and partly the second one, are perhaps the only ones that I would consider as a reliable, somewhat encyclopaedic sources. The rest of them, as mentioned earlier, are just passing mentions, match reports and transfer announcements, which either do not cover the subject in detail or are not valid secondary sources, so I stick with what I said above. Also, he does not have an active professional career since 2018 (Marsala is an amateur club, and in fact it does not even exist anymore), and his Serie B career can be summed up as 24 minutes in a league game. --Angelo (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. First source above is good, but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The first source is a start but GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One hyperlocal piece from a website dedicated specifically to covering his local team as part of a "fan network" is not nearly enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources blatantly fail GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosario Costantino (footballer, born 1988)[edit]

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

Former footballer with only six or seven games in the fourth division of Italy, and then moving to amateur regional leagues afterwards. Could not find any in-depth sources about him [6] so I would say he fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find enough evidence of notability to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Temperino[edit]

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

Former footballer with only two senior seasons and 17 professional games in the minor leagues of Italian football. No significant in-depth coverage about him [7] so I would say he clearly fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing found in ProQuest or an Italian DDG search Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability Bruxton (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Tranchina[edit]

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

Another former footballer who apparently played only one season with Monopoli in 2009 (Italian fourth division at the time), then disappeared. I searched for anything about him under both "Antonio Tranchina" [8] and "Antonino Tranchina" [9] but I could not find anything worth of note, so I assume he fails clearly WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Bruxton (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2022 (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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eswaran Thangavel[edit]

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

~~Unable to locate WP:THREE in the article. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 05:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. DavidEfraim (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am trying to understand the terms used as I am new to contributing text content (Most of my contributions are photos and other community activities). From what I understand it looks like the sources referred are not good enough ?

I have used the Cinematographer's website, news about awards his movies has won etc to come up with the article. I also have a news content which is in south Indian language Kannada. (I will try to share it). Further some of his movies has wiki entries and I have referred the same. In general I agree that my submission lacks English articles to support them. Bobinson (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found one more reference. Bobinson (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2022 (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 per WP:CSK#4 as the nominator was a sockpuppet of a blocked user and all non-keep participants retracted their votes when they found out. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eni gas e luce[edit]

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

~~Unable to find significant coverage on the company that meets WP:NCORP. Article does not meet the guidelines for companies DavidEfraim (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 05:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. DavidEfraim (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important electricity company of the Eni group. Probably the Italian company that supplies the largest number of electricity users to the population. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Eni as an alternative to deletion. BilletsMauves^€500 09:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, see it:Eni Plenitude (the Italian version of this article), is a different company. New. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bad faith nomination by sock account. BilletsMauves^€500 15:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge Subsidiary doesn't warrant a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination by sockpuppet account. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nom by sock HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to De-escalation#Military tactics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off ramp (diplomacy)[edit]

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

Non-notable concept that has only passing mentions in any of the listed sources. This alone is not enough for WP:GNG. I would also support merging this into exit strategy as it is nothing more than a special case of this broad concept. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 12:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Popular culture, and Social science. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 12:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to exit strategy per nom. It's a term that's in use, but this article violates NOTDIC. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add - I still think exit strategy is a far better target. An 'off ramp' is an exit strategy offered by one party to the other. I think deescalation is far broader, and it feels like we are shoe-horning this if we redirect. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete to exit strategy per nominator and user above. Seems to make the most sense. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 13:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge and Redirect to De-escalation#Military tactics as per Bakkster Man- Exit strategy refers to a plan derived by a state to extricate themselves from a situation, while off-ramp is more about one state offering another state a way to deescalate or otherwise disengage from a situation, whether by discretely offering some concession or positioning so as to allow the other state or leader a way to save face. One cannot say that the offramp is a special case of an exit strategy, because there is a fundamentally different dynamic at play. I do think the term is notable in itself, because although none of the articles using it go into depth analyzing the term itself, it has a lot of circulation in academic international relations literature; for example see here. It's something that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia than a dictionary, because the concept also has a history and applications in multiple fields, including negotiation and mediation, as mentioned in this NYT piece. Chagropango (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to De-escalation#Military tactics. As per Chagropango this is a specific tactic to de-escalate a conflict, specifically by offering an adversary an alternate path to escalation, rather than an exit strategy which is one party's self-motivated withdrawl. Not sure there's enough interest in expanding the topic beyond a dictionary definition (such as above suggestion to expand on past examples of de-escalation described as off-ramps; including Israel-Palestine, North Korea, Iran, et al), but at least the merge would put the term into the right article. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally happy with a Merge to De-escalation#Military tactics. Did not consider that possibility but it makes sense. I've already migrated some of the content [10], but happy with whatever everyone thinks is best upon closure of this. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Exit strategy, per El cid.~~, Chagropango, and Bakkster Man~~. I agree that it is a more precise target. Sal2100 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @Shibbolethink: Due to an error I have corrected in Special:Diff/1107260123, Twinkle did not actually list the nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science. The nomination has now been listed there. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is a clear merge situation. No WP:SIGCOV for this as a separate topic and it's basically a synonym for exit strategy in a diplomatic context. Jontesta (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've got 2 different Merge targets proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to De-escalation#Military tactics GoldenRing (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to De-escalation#Military tactics is the best course of action. TH1980 (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2022 (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. However, if someone wants this to actively work on in draft, happy to provide Star Mississippi 02:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Bellmare Hiratsuka season[edit]

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

fails the general notability guideline. google books results are just passing mentions and fail the requirements of significant coverage. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 13:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 13:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I nominated this for PROD for the reason: Fails WP:NSEASONS. Also per WP:NOTDATABASE. The PROD tag was removed by Sportsfan 1234 with the edit summary: this passes WP:NSEASONS, not sure about GNG or SIGCOV, but removing PROD. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 21:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The team competed in J1 league which is the top league in Japan so meets WP:NSEASONS. Unlike players, the odds of a team in the top league getting no significant coverage is near nil, full source searching is limited because Japan doesn't have the best digitalization of offline content (at least for free), but I did find one possible significant source, but paywalled so can't read:

"[Ｊリーグ百年物語]変革と混乱の1999年が始まった――湘南ベルマーレ（98）（川端康生） - 個人". Yahoo!ニュース (in Japanese). Retrieved 2022-08-25.

Jumpytoo Talk 08:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - deletion is not cleanup but... there is no prose content to this article whatsoever. It's just a bunch of tables. I agree with User:Jumpytoo that this passes WP:NSEASONS and also note that any sources are unlikely to be in English but that only makes them harder for English-speakers to find, not non-existent. I think a Japanese-speaker could probably find sources and make something of this but in its current state it shouldn't be in mainspace. GoldenRing (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Jumpytoo:. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. SWinxy (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates NOTDATABASE, a Wikipedia policy Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 5 September 2022 (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!} 16:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is simply a copy of the Wall Street Journal article, and it is unnecessary for the same reason no other newspaper's editorial board has its own article; not significantly separated from the newspaper article itself. There is not a need for a separate article, because it is simply one part of the WSJ as a whole. Bill Williams 13:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly think "The article is simply a copy of the Wall Street Journal article" then I suggest you take another look... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator's rationale doesn't appear accurate, the editorial board of the WSJ is quite notable in its own right. Andre🚐 14:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is definitely not simply a copy as the nominator suggests. It appears to definitely be worthy of its own article, and the Wall Street Journal article already refers to this article for more details on the editorial board. So keeping this appears to be the right course of action CrazyPredictor (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge and delete - I agree with the nominator; there's some good information here, but it could easily be added (or, in some cases, re-added) to the main The Wall Street Journal page. The Wall Street Journal article doesn't need splitting up - it's 112 KB right now, which is admittedly long, but still only about half the length of The New York Times article. Adding another few paragraphs for this additional content won't break anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't a discussion about whether or not WSJ should be split, it already has been. You need to make an argument about why this page doesn't meet GNG etc, its fundamentally a different discussion once the bold edit has been made to create the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense - either this should be one or two articles, and the merits of the argument don't change depending on whether it's currently one or two articles. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They actually are different standards, which is presumably why you're arguing "Delete" rather than "Merge" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's true that what I'm arguing for is really a merge. (Or re-merge.) But I don't think there's any point in keeping this page in place once the merge is done. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a regular merge, not a deletion. Presumably you would want Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal to redirect to Wall Street Journal? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it should be deleted - that's what I meant with my previous comment. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you want a merge rather than a merge and redirect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine - I changed my recommendation to "Merge and delete". Korny O'Near (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is nearly identical to the Editorial Board section of the Wall Street Journal article, and arguing otherwise ignores the fact that it was created by copying and pasting that section into this article. Every other editorial board that is as notable as the WSJ does not have their own articles. The WSJ editorial board is not somehow more notable than every other one, and it does not need its own article because it is not notable independently from the WSJ itself. This article receives almost no views in comparison to the main article, and is not needed in its own right. Bill Williams 17:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be mistaken, it was partially created by copying and pasting but that is not the extent of the issue... Only half of the info in this article can be found at the WSJ main page, if you really think they're nearly identical I advise you take another look. The WSJ editorial board does appear to get more coverage than any other one, that makes it more notable. We base notability on coverage, not our own opinions on whether a topic is notable or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rationale appears to be in error; including material copied from a related article is not reason for deletion; WSJ editorial board has actual significant coverage vs. many other editorial boards (e.g. LAT, Chicago Tribune, WaPo). The fact that those aren't notable doesn't impact this article. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets GNG (see [11][12][13]). Nom's argument amounts to WP:OSE (or more accurately, other stuff does not exist), which is not a reason for deletion. Sure, this article duplicates much from The Wall Street Journal, but it does not have to. House Blaster^talk 23:41, 5 September 2022 (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 Islamic State. My role as an administrator is primarily to determine whether or not to delete, and in this case there is clear consensus against outright deletion, but no consensus for keeping a separate article either.

However, the requested edits to merge the article are something I would do in my capacity as a regular editor. It appears the most popular option here is to merge and redirect to the caliphate article. While considering how to do this however, I struggled to fit it in neatly. The contemporary dreams of a worldwide caliphate are an extreme WP:FRINGE view, whose primary adherents are the Islamic State. The caliphate article is mostly about the historical caliphates, leaving the content here feel out of place. While there is a section on the views of IS in the caliphate article, it also guides readers to the "main article" on the Islamic State. In that article, the organization's ambitions for a worldwide caliphate is well covered, and that article is therefore a more appropriate redirect target.

In my capacity as a regular editor, I will therefore redirect this page to Islamic State. Since the topic already appears to be well covered in that article, I am not merging anything from this article at this point, but the article history remains in case someone thinks otherwise. My decision as a regular editor may of course be amended by any editor who feels they have good cause to do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide caliphate[edit]

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

Page doesn't falls under WP:NOTE and content would be better suited to belong under another page, e.g., the Islamic State page as most of the content in this page references said page content. - NHPluto (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, all of this material will either belong under Caliphate or Islamic State - the Islamic State concept of a caliphate is not obviously any different from the conventional conceptual framework, while the phrase 'worldwide caliphate' is not obviously supported by sources and seems overwrought. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as a key part of his ideology.--Jahaza (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't all caliphates claim to be "worldwide"? If the article is deleted, a simple merge would not be the right way to go. instead, the material would need to be disbursed to a lot of different places: the articles on the individual quoted proponents (not just Baghdadi), caliphate, and pan-Islamism Furius (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a wholly redundant/tautologous concept - a caliphate, by definition, is a presumptive epicenter of global Islamic statehood - and again, the sourced do not support 'worldwide caliphate' as a set phrase - they mention both words in sentences, but as a title, it's somewhat synth-like. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This google search is probably more helpful for finding sources as the one linked in the template above returns mounds of ISIS-related sources and sorting through them is rather painful. But Worldwide caliphate does seem to be distinct concept from Caliphate in that it is specific to jihadist movements of the 21st century and is wider than just the activities of ISIS. Some sources covering this:

The caliphate question: The British government and Islamic governance
Tyrants - section titled "A Worldwide Caliphate: Jihadism's Utopian Vision"
Radical Islam in Central Asia: Between Pen and Rifle - discussing the organization of a proposed "worldwide Caliphate".
Europe, Globalisation and the coming Universal Caliphate

This is hardly exhaustive. There are plenty of sources for it - both predating ISIS and discussing the concept as an outgrowth of jihadism more generally than ISIS. GoldenRing (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these mentions are trivial or primarily titular, without the phrase or concept of a "worldwide caliphate" being discussed at length. Google counts a mere seven mentions across those three books (six excluding the section title in the second) - none of which signifies particularly significant coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Caliphate. The term is certainly one that has been used and Caliphate is the most useful redirect, as it covers the different calls for a worldwide caliphate with room for expansion for others not covered. Jahaza (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then Redirect to Caliphate looks the best option here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Caliphate#Worldwide caliphate (2006-present) - simple. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was Speedy delete. Speedy deleted by patrolling admin (G11). (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wissen Technology[edit]

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

Notabilty. I am very much not impressed by the quality of the references. TheLongTone (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - I've tagged for G11. GoldenRing (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- and it's now been deleted. GoldenRing (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman Saif Al Ghurair[edit]

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

No significant coverage from the sources. Fails gng DavidEfraim (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Arab Emirates. DavidEfraim (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He has some in depth coverage in Arabic, like this for example, and he was head of the Dubai Chamber of Commerce. In a country the size of UAE this is a pretty important post, given the importance of Dubai specifically, so he may qualify under WP:NPOL. Chagropango (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a number of sources, some info. As Chagropango points out, in the Emirates Al Ghurair is a prominent business figure. I wouldn't go for NPOL personally, but believe there are enough sources now presented to demonstrate notability despite a general lack of depth. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reason are mention above. I check that news. -- Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 13:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 11:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Skusta Clee. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lagi (song)[edit]

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

I cant see any credible claim of notability here; I changed ot to a redirct to the dicography section of the artist's page. This was reverted by the article creator, who left a link supposedly (I cant see how) that established notability. Seeking a broader consensus TheLongTone (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSONG on all the sources mentioned. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONG - Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. It seems unlikely, given the current state of sourcing, that much detail will ever be added to the article beyond what is there. GoldenRing (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. It didn't even chart. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: So what do you call at the first two sources mentioned also the iMBD Extern link? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SeanJ 2007: like what GoldenRing have said, "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." IMDb is user-generated. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only coverage in anything approaching an RS is that the artist dedicated the song to their baby child. That can be said in the artist's article and doesn't need a standalone article to say. GoldenRing (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Skusta Clee. I don't think the song warrants its own article but the references can be used to enforce the artist's article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Skusta Clee. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows only the song's music video, not the song itself. SBKSPP (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2022 (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 06:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum Economist[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a decade Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see the article was created by an SPA. Mccapra (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the magazine exists, but most of the prose in the article is unsourced and I can't find anything to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2022 (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 deleted per G11. (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CloudMounter[edit]

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

Is this notable? Seems like an advertisement. -- Beland (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It does get some mentions in books such as [14] and Mac magazines, but these are neither significant coverage nor in any way exceptional. It sits along side mention of countless other applications that are of use but none of which are significant enough for an encylopaedia article. This page reads like a promotional piece (per nom) and if it were re-written with NPOV it would just be the basic description of what the app does. It is not unique. Mountain Duck (no article) and Cyberduck do the same thing among others. Being open source, there is a bit more to say about Cyberduck, but should that be considered at AfD too? Cloud mounting is, in any case, only marketing speak for long established Virtual file system concepts and the application merely rolls multiple network filestore mounting options into one - and it was not the first to do so by any means. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11. I've tagged as such. GoldenRing (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference, clearly very promotional, and add onto that that the article's creator is a blocked sockpuppet... Definitely doesn't belong here. PopoDameron (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've speedied as it unquestionably meets the criteria for both A7 and G11. Deb (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Speedy deleted by patrolling admin (G11) (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Strategy[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, not enough sources found, not particularly notable, advertisement-like article. Nythar^T^.^C 06:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Rhode Island. Nythar^T^.^C 06:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of secondary sources covering this small business. Wikipedia Library search turns up a contributed article in Best's Review by Greenwich Strategy principal Christopher Fay, which unfortunately doesn't contribute to notability per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. There is an Accountancy Age article in the UK which cites a statistic from Greenwich Strategy, but it's unclear whether it's the same firm, and regardless, there is no further info about the company within the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7 - no indication of significance. Waggers TALK 11:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nothing but advertising. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11. Tagged as such. GoldenRing (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2022 (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 06:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanusha[edit]

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

Source released during Internet times. Surprised by the lack of reviews/production sources. This article was probably created with the mindset that later sources would allow the article to be expanded. Because of the lack of sources, the expansion never happened. I have added two sources. In the article, two are about the film's audio launch. The second source added is about an actor from the film talking about all the films he his working on and only briefly mentions the film.

The presence of notable actor Jackie Shroff doesn't inherently make the film notable. The film would be notable if someone can find a review or a source about the cast/crew member talking about the film in detail. Currently fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). DareshMohan (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No additional coverage came up in my search. QuietHere (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is an unresolved WP:V issue, and given the lack of reliable sourcing, or presence on maps, that seems to be a decent argument. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McDaniel, Indiana[edit]

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

Prodded as the non-notable subdivision that it is, was redirected to the township on the claim that WP:NGEO says this ought to be done. First, I have to say that I don't know whether townships in Indiana are a particularly important layer of organization. Be that as it may, this comes down, once again, to the issue of translating GNIS's "populated place" into "unincorporated community". We've found out long ago that this was a mechanical substitution for a term which has proven to be quite sketchy, so I don't see how we make any claims about what this place is using GNIS as an authority, which is what is happening. I can tell it's a subdivision by looking at the maps and aerials, but that isn't going to cut it for writing an article by our standards. These subdivisions need to be deleted, and these township-level lists of "unincorporated communities' need to go away. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Washington Township, Morgan County, Indiana~~ Martinsville, Indiana per Wikipedia:NGEO: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reverting a perfectly valid redirect for the sole purpose of being able to send it to AFD is both unconstructive and a waste of editors' time here. As long as it remains mentioned in the Washington Township article then the redirect is valid. The issue should be taken up on that article first before trying to delete links to it. SpinningSpark 10:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Wikipedia:Deletion by redirection; Redirecting an article is often an appropriate course of action to be taken when an article clearly fails to meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion. In such cases, a bold redirect to an appropriate page allows the history of the article to be maintained such that future editors may expand the article to establish notability for the subject. And mention in township article should be kept Djflem (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it still needs a reliable source at least confirming existence. I'm not seeing anything that does that. GNIS is not reliable for identifying communities. SpinningSpark 12:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any sources beyond the WP:GNIS database attesting to what this is, not even a subdivision or housing development. There's a very short McDaniel Road leading to a farm – this farm has a strip of grass used as an airstrip. [15] says it's owned by a Jim McDaniel. McDaniel Road attaches Robin Road and Hacker Drive that have homes, but it doesn't seem like this is "an unincorporated community" or even a generic subdivision or housing development named after this person. The brother of this or a previous McDaniel was killed in a plane crash departing from here in 1972. It's unconstructive and a waste of editors' time to suggest this zero-effort mass-produced junk "article" should be kept or redirected when we have zero verification of what this place is exactly or that it's notable. Even if the subdivision on Hacker Drive is or was called McDaniel, this is not a notable place, and subdivisions, especially those that are mere houses on a street like this, should not be listed in township articles in general (Indiana has ~5,000 homeowners' associations, which should not be catalogued on Wikipedia, whether these "communities" are in an incorporated area or not). I have removed it from Washington Township since without better sourcing we have no proof it's an "unincorporated town" as was listed there. Reywas92^Talk 15:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find anything to help suggest this is notable. Jacona (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would support the attempt to redirect, except I cannot find any evidence that this is a populated place (given known issues with the reliability of GNIS). Per Reywas92 it seems to be the name of a small airstrip at best and is not an unincorporated community. No redirect is needed and it is not as if there is any significant edit history that would be lost anyway. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The 1967 topo map shows "McDaniel" next to the small group of homes on Hacker Drive, in the same typeface as other small subdivisions around Martinsville, and the airstrip labeled as "McDaniels Field" appears just to the south in the 1980 version. Based on the (extremely sparse) newspaper coverage, I would surmise that the McDaniel family owned farmland in this area and are responsible for the eponymous road, airstrip and subdivision, none of which are notable under GEOLAND or GNG. I don't think we have enough to justify a mention, or even a redirect, in the Martinsville article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ophur[edit]

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

I'm unable to find anything about the band, and the four refs aren't great. It looks like they also went by 'Ophurall', and one of their band members passed a few years later. Their stuff is kindly available on the Internet Archive (and on their website), but those things don't indicate notability. In essence, a failure of WP:BAND. SWinxy (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. SWinxy (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has barely any sources that are notable and a google search comes up with nothing.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has four references already Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor & Burns Architects[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria for companies. None of the sources listed, nor any I was able to find through searching, provided significant coverage of the company itself. In addition, the most frequent contributors are COI editors, both past/present employees and one of its owners. The article reads more like a promotional pamphlet of the company's projects and accolades. If kept, this should stripped back to a stub. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 100% true about the sourcing. I cannot locate anything that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Interesting enough one of the associates may meet guidelines for her own page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ugh. Beyond the above, the article creator was a SPA who spent a great deal of effort promoting this article, and the firm's ostensible creators, in other articles: [16]. He also created numerous redirects that will need untangling. Ravenswing 22:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: The article creator (Jameshf) was likely the firm's intern named by the company's principal (TBAWinter58Wikipedia, self-identified as Carol Burns), in this edit. My guess is that they were editing at the direction of their superiors, or on their own in an earnest attempt to please them. Since their activity predates the WP:PAID policy, they can't be faulted for that... but WP:COI and WP:PROMO violations abound. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodson Junction, West Virginia[edit]

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

Not convinced this is a notable location. All I'm finding is a railroad point on the Frisco in Missouri, several references to a point on the Dayton and Western Railroad that is apparently not this site. This non-accessible passing mention seems to be all I can find. Page creator has a history of making junk and over 200 of their created pages have been deleted. No indication this meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and West Virginia. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding any newspaper coverage or anything to suggest that this was ever a community. –dlthewave ☎ 15:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a WP:V issue due to lack of sourcing that Dodson Junction is, or ever was, a community. Looking at Google Maps, there is a small community at the given location with some houses along a road and a volunteer fire station, but this community is Morrisvale, West Virginia, and it already has an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 2 September 2022 (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 03:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Lapore[edit]

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

Article about soccer player who had a brief career in the third level of US club soccer, and fails WP:GNG. The only online coverage I can find is routine/trivial, which isn't surprising for someone who played at this low level of club soccer at the time. Note that this BLP has been in this poorly-sourced state since 2007. Jogurney (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2022 (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 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless Cool[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, doesn't appear to have notable sources. Nythar^T^.^C 02:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Nythar^T^.^C 02:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a name that one person has come up with as an alternative moniker for Adult contemporary music. One of the references is a dead link. No indication of significance. Mainly original research, so not worth merging anywhere. Waggers TALK 11:53, 31 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents[edit]

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

Extremely unencyclopedic, filled with links to transcripts and not much else. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 14:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 14:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY (and/or similar guidelines). The purpose of this article is served by Wikisource or similar. WP is not meant to be a collection of external links. The context of the links is addressed in the main article, and this is an unneeded fork. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah not the right use of an article. Nweil (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a list of documents, not really an actual article. Valuable info can be worked into Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy as appropriate. Bonewah (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings could also be deleted for the same reason. Bonewah (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource, which is a repository of documents. BD2412 T 22:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource, per BD2412. Not suitable for WP, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Sal2100 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bringing attention to the proposal to convert to Wikisource pages instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Andre🚐 00:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsahi Merkur[edit]

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

Parking lot owner/operator. Seems to lack notability. Sources mostly just discuss his parking company and not much about him. Andre🚐 15:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Israel. Andre🚐 15:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see sufficient coverage for the WP:GNG in the Hebrew and English entries. Our text needs cleanup. Now, even if it would be true that his companies receive much more attention (not proven!), why was deletion suggested, rather than a rework to the investment firm done? gidonb (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I found about him was this one: [17] which feels a bit like a puff/fluff piece. I don't speak Hebrew unless it's the hamotzi. If you have sufficient coverage of him in other sources, that aren't just about the parking garage company making deals and acquiring other parking garage companies, feel free to post them. Andre🚐 01:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such responses are too common. Please start with a thorough WP:BEFORE, taking into account WP:NEXIST and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. After that there will be no need to belittle subjects of WP:BLP and the sources that describe them. Just as bringing forth bread from the earth is a process, so are good AfDs! gidonb (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Parking lot owner/operator? He owns a company that operates around a hundred different parking lots, that's quite an undersell. Also notable businessperson in other ventures. Many sources: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude talk 08:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' The sources listed above are not good enough to give significant coverage. Fails gng. DavidEfraim (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DavidEfraim, how is a full profile in Channel 12 (Israel) or a long piece of investigative journalism in Globes (newspaper)? And there's much more. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Provided sources have been challenged as not helping to fulfil the WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sourcing provided indicates a WP:GNG pass, with extensive coverage in major Israeli newspapers. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and none is going to emerge while his death is literally in the news. Cases are made on both sides (for this purpose, keeping keep/merge together as in preserve vs. not preserving the content) from established editors, and even discounting SPAs and non-policy based !votes, there does not even appear to be a forming consensus. While I do not see a scenario where the content is not included,discussion on where the information is best presented will be helpful tothe reader and could possibly lead to better resolution, including Legacy, Funeral information referenced below. Star Mississippi 02:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mikhail Gorbachev[edit]

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

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

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

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

Deletion is proposed due to the page violating WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. While the death of Gorbachev is newsworthy, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and his passing is not notable enough to warrant an entire separate article. Most Wikipedia articles covering someone's death do so as a result of the death itself warranting a separate article, such as an assassination/murder, or if the death was part of or led to a major event, such as the Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin; this death does not fall under the former, nor does it - as of now at least - fall under the latter. In addition, the article adds very little additional content to what is already included in the article on Mikhail Gorbachev. This article should therefore be deleted and content on Gorbachev's death be added to the main article on Mikhail Gorbachev instead. Willsteve2000 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support - his death is not worthy of an article by itself, and certainly not this quickly Plumeater2 (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, and Russia. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if presidents of the United States are able to have pages which discuss their deaths, I don't see how Gorbachev can't. Someguy432 (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHATABOUT. — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 17:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — If you want to point out examples, plenty of influential figures, be it Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, George H. W. Bush, Winston Churchill, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, all have pages on their death. The only difference between Gorbachev and these figures is that he doesn't have a state funeral, or a funeral at all, at least as of now, but a state funeral should not define whether or not a page is created on his death. I'm aware the political climate in Russia is very tense, especially towards Gorbachev and his policies, but I would not be surprised if Gorbachev had a funeral. A unanimous ITN nomination with the strongest support for a page I've ever seen is enough for me to say that this is something that warrants a page. I don't see the point of an AfD when there will likely be a funeral or some sort of service, and when the topic itself is growing in scale. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at this stage his death seems to be notable. Further, good points have been raised about Western-Bloc bias. Finally WP:NOTNEWS isn't intended to stop articles on current notable events and indeed encourages editors to "develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. In addition to the nominator's rationale, this is WP:ROUTINE. WP:NEVENTS lists "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths ...) ... are usually not notable", so this is pretty clear-cut to me. Unless we have conspiracy theories, some elaborate funeral, public protests, or heck, even a cause of death, there is nothing here that cannot simply be merged to Mikhail Gorbachev. Toadspike (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree but this in not a WP:ROUTINE event. Gorbachev's impact on the world since before and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union is incalculable. This is a huge event and many lament his passing, as demonstrated by the multiplicity of reliable sources in the reference section. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn, I agree. But there is a wider problem here: WP:ROUTINE can be applied to anything, but is used selectively.

If we applied it consistently, we'd delete vast chunks of Wikipedia.

Person elected to public office? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually gets lots of media coverage. Yawn.

Football team wins match? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.

Big company releases new product? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually gets lots of media coverage. Yawn.

New law enacted? Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.

Criminal commits crime, gets convicted. Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.

Musician records song, gets in the charts. Routine. Happens regularly around the world, usually get lots of media coverage. Yawn.

And so on. I have seen some utterly absurd uses of WP:ROUTINE, and this article is one of them. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This is an important event in world history. Moondragon21 (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr. Gorbachev is substantially covered. Andre🚐 02:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gorbachev death is notable if there a problem on the article we can fix it. HurricaneEdgar 03:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gorbachev is a notable person, and his funeral will likely bring many people to Russia. I also agree with the statements of ElijahPepe and SomeGuy432, that other notable leaders have whole articles about their death and funerals. It would be extremely Western-Block centric for this website to give US Presidents, the ex-wife of a British prince, British Prime Ministers, etc. their own article but omit Mr GorbachevCooluncle55 (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed If we delete Gorbechav's death, then, just add more info to the death section of Gorbechav's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:FB01:9300:556A:EE35:4A75:85FF (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is big news. 142.161.173.231 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an event makes the news does not automatically warrant it having an entire separate Wikipedia article, especially when coverage under another article (such as Mikhail Gorbachev) would be sufficient. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Willsteve2000 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source from June in the article, so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article is on the death of Mikhail Gorbachev; the source from June does not discuss this (as Gorbachev only just died). The source from June is therefore not an indication of the enduring notability the event, nor does it reflect on the notability of the specific event. Unless I'm missing something in the WP guidelines, WP:NOTNEWS does indeed apply. Willsteve2000 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read other such articles - and they have sections about the person's health, and some are prior years to the event. So, the mentioned source is connected to the topic of the article, do you agree? Kirill C1 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the source is connected to the event, but the source is not about the event. As such, the source cannot provide an indication as to how notable the specific event (his death) is, nor indicate the enduring notability of the event. While I agree that the source provides important background regarding Gorbachev’s death, the source does not make WP:NOTNEWS not apply, which was the point of my response. While similar sources have appeared in other such articles, and should appear in this one if the article is kept, the fact that this source is present does not impact the applicability of WP:NOTNEWS. Willsteve2000 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mikhail Gorbachev. This does not need an article of its own. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 04:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I will add on. His death wasn't super eventful, but eventful enough that we can merge it and add more information into the main article. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 22:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see WP:NOTNEWS 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 ⋅𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔⋅ 03:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with all your reasons. I understand the points about Western bias regarding articles covering deaths of Western politicians, but I also don't think those articles should be automatically added either, unless they're notable for reasons like the ones @User:Willsteve2000 said. I support already existing articles about the deaths of Western politicians being deleted if they're not notable and can just be merged with the article about the person in question, just as I do here. Stephanie921 (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His death is not suspicious nor it is notable. Those using irrelevant argument WP:OSE should know that we don't have a Death of Konstantin Chernenko article, the person who preceded Gorbachev. 43.250.158.176 (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the people who preceded Gorbachev were Dan and Frank Carney? ( this is a joke ) Stephanie921 (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Well said. 43.250.158.176 (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao ty :) Stephanie921 (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the concerns about recentism and whataboutism, but Mikhail Gorbachev’s death is enormously important, his death marks the transition from the old Soviet world from living memory. The death of Gorbachev is certainly going to be an event people will want to study or learn about, an article is appropriate.R. J. Dockery (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can say that for sure @User:R. J. Dockery. People's political beliefs don't revolve around this one man, and even if it did cause metaphysical political change - which I'm not sure it will, since ur point is more about what this represents symbolically, something more suited to an opinion piece than Wikipedia even if ur right - that'd be more about political changes that happen after his death rather than his death itself. It'd be related to other political beliefs that were systemic before his death - or political beliefs opposed to those systems - which would still be about ideas rather than this one event. Anyway, I'd argue the Pizza Hut and Louis Vuitton ads he did are more representative of the Post-fall transition than this Stephanie921 (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of people alive who remember the old Soviet world. There just isn't anyone alive who was the Soviet head of state or head of the Soviet Communist Party. (There are even two people alive who served as Premier of the Soviet Union.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Metropolitan90 I don't understand what ur trying to say, could u elaborate please? Stephanie921 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my response was meant to be directed toward R.J. Dockery, not to you. I meant that Gorbachev's death does not mean that the USSR has been lost to "living memory" (the memory of people now living). I don't disagree with what you wrote above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, thank you Stephanie921 (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lots of pages on notable deceased people that have their own page about their death, so why shouldn't this article? AKK700 04:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Those arguing in favor of "Keep" should read WP:ILIKEIT. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per what? There's lots of shit above, including delete !votes. ~Styyx^Talk? 06:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Styyx. Asking a editor to elaborate is one thing, but I don't think that it's particularly constructive to call people's contributions 'shit'. (Re-adding this after another user deleted it) Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Tomorrow and tomorrow I think you misunderstood Styyx. I think they were using shit as a synonym to 'stuff'. I don't think Styyx was being rude. Idk ur pronouns btw Styyx so feel free to tell me and I'll correct this msg if necessary Stephanie921 (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephanie921, thank you for pointing out - reading back I realise it could also have been intended like you say. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. This standalone feels redundant. ZeroHundert (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the most notable deaths of recent times. Sahaib (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The person being notable doesn't make the death itself notable. 61.1.20.158 (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable person ≠ Notable death FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since when has an encyclopedia become about deaths of particular people? If it happened in a suspicious circumstance, it would make sense. But as of right now I don't see a point. The creator should have waited to see whether this generates significant coverage for more than a single or few days. 59.94.160.4 (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge: As for now, there is nothing notable about his death, independently of what is already notable about him. If other "Death of ..." articles like this exist, I would be in favor of deleting them too. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait (i.e., keep) ~~Although he won't get a state funeral,~~ his funeral may be very widely covered. If that coverage is sufficiently continuous, then it passes WP:NEVENT. If it ultimately doesn't garner enough coverage the AfD can be revisited. Ovinus (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 01:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This is an important figure in modern world history. Yeungkahchun (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notable person ≠ Notable death FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I clicked on this article to get more information on his death and the reactions of different world leaders as he was a divisive figure. His main article is already really long, so I don't see why we cant keep this article and link to it in the main article in case people want to know more, which is the way its set up now. Aozeba (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could just merge this with the main article and click on the little sidebar that says "Death"? FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is pretty pointless. Yes, there is media attention, but it is unlikely to be lasting wrt his death. There is also very little useful content, as his death seems pretty ordinary (as opposed to eg an assassination). Who cares about the press releases of world leaders? There is no reason for what is salvageable not to be in the main article rather than here, given that there is very little of substance to say. 212.187.244.82 (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article literally has zero use. It wasn't really a massive event that caused his death, just an illness, as compared to that of Shinzo Abe earlier this year, for example. Take a look at the length of the article at the moment, which gives one sentence about his illness and a small list of international condolences. I doubt there will be much room for expansion and if it were to be expanded, it would not be expanded much further than the information already in the Mikhail Gorbachev article. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: an important figure.--Sakiv (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notable person ≠ Notable death FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTE. Any sudden reason for his death? KyleRGiggs (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No @User:KyleRGiggs The hospital said he died of a "long and prolonged illness".

So there is no any sudden reason there. Then WP:NOTE. KyleRGiggs (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge: The death isn't noteworthy enough to the point that it deserves an independent article, although the figure is important. Ddxfx (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge: There was nothing unusual about his death, be it the cause or the circumstances. Had he been assassinated, that be would be different, but he wasn't. He just died like old people do everyday. Graham Beards (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the other comments - Mikhail Gorbachev was an important historical figure with a series of articles, which should include his death. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notable person ≠ Notable death FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: As with the above reply, the death isn't noteworthy as it wasn't done by murder. Check with other world leader's deaths such as Suharto and Chiang Kai-shek who were also leaders in around the same time which don't have a dedicated page about their death so I see no reason as to why his death warrants a page, otherwise we would have to give every ex-leader of every nation a death page regardless of how they died. -NHPluto (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we were to keep this article separate, we would need to make it like an actual article. That's the main problem. It would be very nice if there was more in this article. This is the point of Wikipedia. Making an ACCURATE and DETAILED (if possible) free encyclopedia free of any influence, not just "so uh this person died". I hope i didn't say anything wrong with this. Itagam (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Itagam, I agree this article could be improved, however you say this is "the main problem". Just a reminder that as per WP:ARTN, article content does not determine notability. Whether or not the article is well fleshed out is not relevant to if it should be deleted. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, i am sorry. Itagam (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as dying of old age is not noteworthy. Al, George, Steve, etc. don't have separate death articles. Why Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush exists is beyond me. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It exists because the topic is significantly covered in reliable sources. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'm all for a separate article to exist per WP:SUMMARY if there's enough content to justify it, but currently there's no detail in the Death article that wouldn't work in the Death section of the main article. Waggers TALK 11:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - Maybe if his death was in some way noteworthy (i.e. it was an assasination or a rare disease etc etc.) it would make sense but it seems it was an uneventful passing. This article is a blatent example of Recentism. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The artcle has significant coverage, it can be expanded from other languages pages and be used for the blurb on main page. The size of main artilce is so big it justifies existence of standalone article. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For obvious reasons. Probably the most important statesman of the second half of last century. --TheUzbek (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "obvious" about it. We have Mikhail Gorbachev and that's where the coverage belongs. Graham Beards (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consensus on creating articles about deaths of influential people, see Thatcher, George H. W. Bush, Mandela, so creation of this article is not something extraordinary. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! There is no consensus **whatsoever** that influential people are entitled to get articles about their deaths. There *is* a consensus that when there is significant information about the circumstances of the death and a major funeral, there may be enough content to justify a split of the article to cover that. That may be the case here in several days, but this article is premature and you should not spew nonsense. Reywas92^Talk 20:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Reywas92 Please don't tell people things like "you should not spew nonsense". @User:Кирилл С1 wasn't intentionally trying to say a consensus that didn't exist, and they (idk ur pronouns Кирилл, feel free to tell me and I'll correct this msg if I need to) weren't even saying there was a consensus. They were just saying there seems to be one. Even if they thought a consensus existed, they could have genuinely thought that but just have made a mistake, and it's not constructive to accuse them of spewing nonsense rather than just telling them they're wrong and why. Stephanie921 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consensus is implied given the number of articles covering the deaths of highly notable persons. Consensus is a reasonable assumption at this point because editors have not gathered together and deleted such articles.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mikhail Gorbachev no doubt changed the course of history for not only Russia, but the entire world. If this doesn't warrant a separate article for his death, I don't know what does. 2600:1009:B124:9728:38C9:ECA:FF9C:2557 (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per @FishandChipper, notable person ≠ notable death. No one is denying that Gorbachev was an important person, but that does not automatically warrant a separate article for his death unless the death itself was noteworthy (such as assassination, etc.). See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Willsteve2000 (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The parent article is already too long to accommodate all details about his life, so separating it into sub-articles is definitely the right way to go. Also, the numerous reactions to his death and obituaries published in reliable sources make this notable enough.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of the "reactions" to his death boil down to "____ gave condolences" which isn't exactly that noteworthy. And a large majority of articles on dead people are much longer than Gorbachev's and they only have a death section too. Are you saying that every single person who dies should get an article about who was sad that they died? FishandChipper 🐟🍟 15:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article is shorter than other death articles, you’re encouraged to expand it with content from reliable sources (there are lots because this has been top news for almost a day). As for whether every single person who dies should get an article, yes if the death receives sufficient coverage in reliable sources as this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What i meant is that Gorbachev's MAIN article is shorter than some others with only a death section, not this article. And also literally every single actor/musician/politician etc etc etc's death gets coverage in reliable sources nowadays so singling out Gorbachev's is pointless. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the most important and influential figures of the last half century. His death is definitely newsworthy as he was a former head of state. Gorbachev's death marks the end of an era. As he was a former head of state, his death is just as important as Ronald Reagan's or George H.W. Bushs'. It is also worth noting that other former heads of state who did not have a state funeral have articles covering their death such as for example Helmut Kohl. Evercool1 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article right now is short but will likely expand in length once details of his funeral are added. Blythwood (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article will be expanded over time, especially when the funeral comes in. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the article will definitely be expanded, it will need far more information than it has now to warrant an article. The Ronald Regan death article is far longer. And one of the exceptions to article about natural deaths. 61.1.22.69 (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. I propose that for all *famous* people, we have a standard navbox template. It must contain slots for the following obviously notable separate articles:— Birth of Mr Famous, Baptism of Mr Famous, Schooling of Mr Famous, Early life of Mr Famous, Career of Mr Famous, Personal life of Mr Famous, Humorous gaffes of Mr Famous, Publicity blurbs of Mr Famous, Major illnesses of Mr Famous, and of course Death of Mr Famous. Optionally, for religious famousites, we should permit Rebirth of Mr Famous and Apparitions of Mr Famous. That way, we'll have plenty of coverage of each famous person, which will keep all recentists and publicity-hungry readers happy!
Delete as a single event that can readily be accommodated in the single article on the man, guys, this is ridiculous. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important historical events. ---Yinyue200 (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We generally no longer list the names of every leader who issues routine statements so not sure why that's there. Without that there's no article. Utterly baffling why this was created. Split when actually warranted with more content, not prematurely for the sake of it. Just because someone is significant doesn't mean there automatically must be a separate article for their death, that is based on having content that justifies it. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As much of a figure Gorbachev was, the circumstances to his death are normal. If in the event a state funeral is given, then that article may be put separate. Otherwise, there is no need even for that. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge Gorbachev was a very important person during the Cold War and ended it, gave people rights when the Soviet Union existed, and others. Just like the articles of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, ect, these people were very important just like Gorbachev. But since there is no funeral for Gorbachev yet, then this should be merged into the main article. Otherwise, this article should still be kept until further notice. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the rationale that other heads of state have death pages. I would've voted for Merge otherwise. Liliana ^(UwU) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WHATABOUT. Just because other heads of state have death pages does not mean Gorbachev should therefore have one, especially when the content does not add much more than what is already on the main article on Gorbachev. Willsteve2000 (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My inclination is to recommend delete, because just being an important person does not necessarily mean that the person's death is important enough to cover in a separate article. We have to go by whether there is enough independently sourced content to justify a separate article. Currently two-thirds of the sources cited here are just being used to provide a (tedious, in my opinion) list of world leaders who have offered condolences. Under normal circumstances I would have expected many world leaders to show up for Gorbachev's funeral, but I suspect many of those who might have done so will skip it to avoid traveling to Russia during the war in Ukraine. I will hopefully be able to offer a specific recommendation before this AfD ends. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what's worthwhile to Mikhail Gorbachev, at least for the time being. Right now there's not really anything to justify a separate article for this. If this becomes something that receives sustained and lasting coverage this can be reconsidered. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The info available right now fits very neatly into the death box in the main Gorbachev page. There's nothing expanded on in the Gorbachev death page that couldn't easily be carried over or discarded. Until more unique/notable info is out, there's not really any need for a death page that fits easily into the main page without needing to be summarized. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 2:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL prevents me from predicting what my recommendation will be when this AfD closes.^[Joke] More seriously, I think any useful content could be ~~merged~~ to Mikhail Gorbachev (and if there is none at closure, a redirect is fine because it's a subtopic that someone might plausibly search for given Mikhail's importance). Right now, only the reactions section would be too clunky to include in the death section of the main article; I don't consider that enough to justify a separate article (per above, boils down to X expresses condolences). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 04:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as article has been improved and expanded to where merging no loger makes sense. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 08:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep without prejudice (was ~~Merge~~ per WP:NLIST). This article is actually a misnamed list. The title would suggest that it is an article about an event, when in reality it is a list of reactions of world leaders and governments to that event. THat is not a noteworthy list. If someone can edit the page to even suggest that this is an independently noteworthy event, I am willing to reconsider this vote. De Guerre (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There are discussions on whether he gets state funeral and who of the western leaders or acquaintances will come. This is additional content and coverage that shows independent noteworthiness. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  For what it's worth, I do strongly suspect that Mr Gorbachev's funeral will be noteworthy, in part because of the geopolitical situation that is surrounding it at the moment. Many other world leaders have a "death and funeral" article. I am still not seeing any justification that Mr Gorbachev's death, specifically, is noteworthy independent of his life and legacy. At the very least, the focus and of this article should be reconsidered. De Guerre (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Ur first sentence is an incredibly good point which I hadn't considered before, however I'm still not changing my vote cos we don't know if that's gonna be the case for sure. If it is then I still wouldn't think the subject of his death is noteworthy. I may - although weakly - think the subject of his funeral is noteworthy if ur predictions are true and may support retitling and restructuring this article to be about only his funeral. But then again, that depends on how much general discussion will relate his funeral to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I doubt there will be enough comparisons made to sustain an entire article, and I'm guessing the comparisons could just be limited to the section about his death and funeral on the Mikhail Gorbachev page. If I'm right that documenting the comparisons can be kept there, then I still support this article being deleted. Stephanie921 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am changing my vote to "speedy keep without prejudice" because the title and focus of the article has changed. Active cleanup is always a valid response to an AfD. I now believe the article should stay while it is being cleaned up (WP:NLIST still applies), until at least after the funeral, at which point we can reconsider the possibility of deletion if it seems appropriate. De Guerre (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Borka gets one so must Misha. Moreover, Gorbachev's death has occured in a much more turbulent time in Russian and world history than Yeltsin's in 2007. --Spafky (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WHATABOUT. Just because Boris Yeltsin has a death page does not mean Gorbachev should therefore have one, especially when the content does not add much more than what is already on the main article on Gorbachev. Under that logic, one could argue against Gorbachev having a death page as his predecessor, Konstantin Chernenko, does not have one, as mentioned above. As mentioned below by @Jayron32, "the only relevant thing is this article, and how Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines instruct us to deal with it." Willsteve2000 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without Gorbachev there would be no Yeltsin. Chernenko was an old decrepit who spent his year in theoretical power dying and missing politburo meetings, and Gorbachev was already largely running things the facto in 1984-85. Spafky (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to main article, which can adequately cover the death without requiring a distinct subarticle; the excessive list of reactions can be pared back or completely removed per WP:TRIVIA. --Jayron 32 10:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSince this has opened, additional sources have come to light, indicating that this is currently sufficiently able to be developed enough to stand apart from the article it was split from. --Jayron 32 12:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the list of reactions is really WP:TRIVIA. It could maybe converted into prose, but I don't see a problem with it as long as it's reliable sourced. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The individual reactions of every country that can be found are generally not relevant to the overall narrative of a person's life. Lists of dozens and dozens of world leaders expressing sorrow is not something that generally is important in the narrative of a person's life; certainly they don't occur in any other biographies outside of Wikipedia, so they can't be terribly relevant when writing biographies anywhere else in the world. Why here? --Jayron 32 11:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The individual reactions of every country that can be found are generally not relevant to the overall narrative of a person's life" - but reactions to his death are relevant to the article about Gorbachev's death and corresponding narrative. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just a split out from the article Mikhail Gorbachev. Per WP:SUMMARY, "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic" The list of reactions is an artificial addition to beef up this subject to make it appear to be necessary to split it off from the main Gorbachev article. If it were not so artificially added to add excessive and unneeded detail to the subject, it would fit fine at the Mikhail Gorbachev article. --Jayron 32 12:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is fine. It obviously meets WP:GNG given the amount of coverage received, so it's more a question of whether it's a WP:NOPAGE case for merging into the parent. I would say no. If we're going to have Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush then it makes sense to also have one for Gorbachev, who was a very superpower influential leader and in a similar vein. Even if he doesn't get a state funeral, that's a talking point in itself given the ambivalent status the modern Russian government has towards him... — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale for anything. There can be any number of reasons why something else exists somewhere else. Maybe it's not a good analog for this article. Or maybe it shouldn't exist either; the mistakes of the past do not bind us to continue to make mistakes in the present. Or maybe there are reasons for that thing to exist that don't exist in this case. There are a near infinite number of reasons why that article does exist, and basically none of them are relevant to this article. The only relevant thing is this article, and how policy and guidelines instruct us to deal with it. --Jayron 32 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning other articles is worth because it counters argument that it barely has prose - you can see from other articles perspective of growth. Some other similar articles also rebuff WP:NOTNEWS argument, having reliable sources over a long period. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article has enough prose. This one, not yet. Not a valid comparison. Maybe this subject will reach the point will have enough to be split off from the main article, but not yet, and we cannot reliably predict the future. --Jayron 32 15:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that WP:OSE isn't a universally bad argument. If stuff is designated as good articles or featured articles or some other type of award/distinction, it should be a role model.

On the question of deleting this article, I'm neutral. I elaborated more in my reply, but the TLDR is if there's a state funeral, and if there are notable guests, or for some reason the cause of death in itself is pretty notable (like drugs or a rare cancer), keep; otherwise merge and anchor. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why it is a bad argument is that people use it based on spurious reasons. Vanishingly close to 100% of the time it is used, it falls into one of two kinds of comparisons. Type 1) "An other article exists (links to a horrifying and obviously terrible article that has no business existing, but somehow has not yet been deleted or fixed) so we have to keep this article under discussion"; or Type 2) "An other article exists (links to an article which has some minor superficial point of commonality with the article under discussion) so we have to keep this article under discussion". Neither is a valid rationale for anything. The fact that it is possible to make a cogent OSE argument is true only in the sense that it is also possible to win the lottery: Surely it happens, but counting on it as a matter of expectation is unwise. In general, arguments should be limited to how the current article under discussion does, or does not, comply with various policies, guidelines, and other best practices. If we limited our discussions to ONLY that subject matter, we'd have far better, more productive discussions. --Jayron 32 14:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @ElijahPepe and @BrownHairedGirl. As well, Gorbachev has recieved a state funeral. Imperator Storm (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This is definitely something that should be merged in most other cases since this isn't an assassination (see the recent Assasination of Shinzo Abe as an example), but Gorbachev's death spurred numerous reactions. We have articles already on the deaths (and for some state funerals) for Nelson Mandela, Kim Il-sung, Michael Jackson, and many others.
I would wait until a notable funeral happens, if it does happen. I would recommend modeling this article after the deaths of Nelson Mandela and Kim Il-sung. If no funeral happens though, I would merge into Gorbachev's main article and redirect this page to an anchor on such article. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one and delete all other Death of Super Important President. The death itself was not notable, he was an old man in his 90s, not assassinated by aliens or spies. Artem.G (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change title, but turn into a "death and legacy of Gorbachev" article - considering the impact he had on the world and how heavily debated his impact was (esp. in different regions), there might be enough sources and stuff worth creating an entire page of "Legacy of Mikhail Gorbachev" and merging more in-depth details about his depth would fit in better in a page like that. NHCLS (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could definitely work as an idea, and I would back it, but I'm afraid that other editors would not be favored to this idea. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Elijah and Cooluncle55 in particular. Also, in view of polarised opinions on his legacy and in view of the current geopolitical situation, reactions to his death are worth including. As will be the list of foreign attendees to the funeral, if any are allowed to come. Aridd (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lot's of people seem to be equating the importance of the subject with notability of his death. Of course Mikhail Gorbachev was extremely influential on the history of the world in the late 20th century, but that doesn't necessarily make his death notable, and there hasn't been enough time since it happened for the event to be notable. What secondary sources (i.e. not primary news reports) have been written about this death of a 91-year-old after a long illness? And, before anyone accuses me of pro-Western bias (which is a strange accusation to make here as Gorbachev was more highly regarded in the West than anywhere else) I would support deletion of articles about the deaths of any Western politicians that don't have proper secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand ur "don't have proper secondary sources" point @User:Phil Bridger. Would u mind elaborating? Stephanie921 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every reference is a primary source (i.e. a news report) of his death. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, cheers guvna! Stephanie921 (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: a news report is not a primary source. It is a secondary source.

See WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course news reports of an event are primary sources for that event. That's History 101. In this case such reports may include secondary source material about Gorbachev himself or events surrounding his life, but the article up for deletion is Death of Mikhail Gorbachev, not Mikhail Gorbachev or Fall of Communism or Break-up of the Soviet Union. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but one needs to be a little more precise here. A news report purely of Gorbachev's death would be primary, a news report quoting people commenting on the significance of his life, detailing the effects of his policies and legacy are secondary because they are inherently analytical of his life in toto. Almost all the coverage to date has been a mixture of the two; reflections on his life as a result of his death. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, @Phil Bridger. A significant component of news report is secondary, reporting the various primary sources: official statements, notices, tweets, local media etc. In a case like this where the death and funeral are remote from the locations of most news media, actual on-the-ground primary reporting will be a small component of most news reports. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS @Phil Bridger: if you genuinely believe that all news reports are primary sources, then you should seek the mass-tagging of articles which use news reports as sources, and the mass deletion of articles which do not have sufficient non-primary sources.

My guess is that maybe a quarter or a half of all articles would go in that purge. It might not be a bad idea, as the clearout would lead us towards a much smaller Wikipedia based on scholarly sources ... but until that principle is broadly agreed, the case for applying it here looks highly selective. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

news reports of an event are primary sources for that event - That can sometimes be true see WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more info. Generally, a newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events. WP:INTERVIEWS also supports the idea of analysis and commentary as secondary content. Remember, the same source can be both primary and secondary, depending what is being cited. -- GreenC 05:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge: This shouldn't become a reactions or news website for some deaths. Reactions happen for death of every major celebrity. Don't see the point unless the article is very greatly expanded, especially beyond the reactons part. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the most significant leaders in the 20th century. His death and funeral is a highly-notable event, covered extensively in global news media.
It is bizarre to see some editors trying to use a strange interpreation of policy to argue for the deletion of this article. I assume that they are making these claims in good faith, and if my assumption is correct then they are wrong to single out this one article. Their correct course of action would be make a group nomination of all 53 "Death and (state) funeral of foo" articles, or better still open an RFC on how to apply notability guidelinee to such articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:BrownHairedGirl Yh, I said I think articles about the deaths and/or funerals of any politician shouldn't be automatically added, and would be in favour of the ones that already exist being deleted - unless they were notable for reasons that actually pertained to death and/or funeral, and not only the person themselves (like Willsteve2000 said). I.e. I'd be okay with keeping the article Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin because many victims of his cult of personality who attended the funeral died in a human crush during it. Some other editors expressed support for generally deleting articles which covered unotable death and/or state funerals of politicians Stephanie921 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephanie921: your comment might have had some credibility if you had refrained from POV commentary: cult of personality is a pejorative term applied to popular leaders who are disapproved of. (No, I am not in any way a fan of Stalin, but there were also cults of personality around e.g. Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan, de Gaulle, Gandhi).

More broadly, funerals are a moment when people sum up the life and career of the deceased. The news reports of those assessments are an important record of how the deceased was viewed at the time of their death, esp by heads of state and of government, but also by opinion writers. I see nothing in our notability guidelines to require that we assess only coverage of the actual events on the ground at the funeral. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think @Stephanie921's use of the term "cult of personality" was intended to be POV commentary or pejorative in nature, I think she was just referring to the idolization and worship of Stalin among the Soviet populace (see Joseph Stalin's cult of personality). Willsteve2000 (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yh, thanks Will. Also my pronouns are she/her :) Stephanie921 (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated :) Willsteve2000 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Willsteve2000: the POV commentary is entirely irrelevant to the discussion and redundant to the substantive point which @Stephanie921 was trying to make, viz. that people were killed at the funeral. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl You're the one who mentioned it; if it's irrelevant and redundant, then why did you bring it up? Willsteve2000 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Willsteve2000: you are demonstrably wrong.

I did not bring it up; Stephanie921 was the editor who brought it up.[25] I responded to criticise her use of POV commentary.

In future, please read before commenting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl I did read the section, did you? You're the one who claimed that the use of the phrase "cult of personality" was POV commentary and pejorative, to which I said that it wasn't the case and was instead a reference to Joseph Stalin's cult of personality. You then replied that the POV commentary is irrelevant and redundant. But if the alleged POV commentary is irrelevant and redundant, then why would you bring it up by stating that "your comment might have had some credibility if you had refrained from POV commentary: 'cult of personality' is a pejorative term...?"

You mentioned it in your comment. You brought it up. While @Stephanie921 used the term "cult of personality," it was you who brought up it being POV commentary (which, again, I was responding that it was not), and then later said that "the POV commentary is entirely irrelevant... and redundant..." So why mention it, even to criticize it, if it's so irrelevant and redundant?

In future, please read before commenting. Willsteve2000 (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:BrownHairedGirl my use of 'cult of personality' wasn't POV commentary, since it has a sourced article. I think u misunderstood what cult of personality means. It's not a pejorative applied to people the user doesn't like but rather an observance of how their fans view them, which has academic use. However @User:Willsteve2000 if BrownHairedGirl wants to criticize people for inserting POV commentary - whether they were or not - then she can. I think it was a good thing she stood up for what she believed in, and using her words against her like u did when you said "please read" is rude and unconstructive Stephanie921 (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephanie921 Yeah, I guess I was just bothered when it was insinuated by @BrownHairedGirl that I didn't read the section before commenting. For the record, when I said that the alleged POV commentary was brought up, I meant that it was mentioned by the user, not that the user said the commentary in question. I did not intend for my remarks to come across as rude and unconstructive, and I apologize if they did. Willsteve2000 (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what did u mean by "death and state funeral of foo"? Stephanie921 (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"foo" is a placeholder name. Read it as "insert any name here". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yh, thank you! Stephanie921 (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Mikhail Gorbachev, despite his notability and influence. I don't feel that his death warrants its own article for the time being, especially given his age. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XtraJovial: please identify the policy or guideline which stipulates that age is a criterion in notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE. There are no additional details which would require a new article. desmay (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've changed my position from neutral. I subscribe to and second BrownHairedGirl's arguments. The funeral in itself I believe will be cause for media attention due to such a prominent leader from the 21st century being denied a full state funeral. Gorbachev's funeral in itself will be unique as it has many of the elements of a state funeral but lacks a few attendees, most notably President Putin. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that everything we know and can credibly source about Gorbachev's final days be included here. I think that the article describing the final days, death, and state funeral of former Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev can serve as a good basis on how to model Gorbachev's article; it's a GA and outlines material that would prolong Gorbachev's main article. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge as per XtraJovial. ¹⁴¹ Pr 18:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interfax reports there will be an element of state funeral in the form of honor guard which alongside Gorbachev's transformative role is sufficient for a standalone article. Brandmeister^talk 19:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there will be a state funeral doesn't mean it justifies keeping an article. I'm not opposed to an article if it has way more information than it has now. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gorbachev death news is very popular and important for now, why must be removed even though a less popular character than him has an article on his death. I think even if Putin death still have to make an article on his death even though many are hated from his country to the whole world. KenzoHarits56 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Gorbachev's funeral has occurred. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that. Thousands went out on the streets to pay tributes, virtually all media hold it as one of the main news today (BBC, CNN, Deutsche Welle etc.), but people here still think that his death isn’t notable at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that "his death isn’t notable at all," nor are they arguing that his death isn't worth discussing on Wikipedia. This AfD discussion is over whether it deserves its own page. Yes, it made the news, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper; something getting a news article about it does not mean it should automatically get a Wikipedia article when the content of such an article could already be included in the main Mikhail Gorbachev article. Right now, there just isn't enough content regarding Gorbachev's death and funeral to justify having an entire separate article about it, and even now that the funeral is finished, there is still no additional information in this article that can't just be included in his main article. If this changes, then a separate article can and should be created, but as of now, a merge to the main article with a redirect left to the death section will suffice. Willsteve2000 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a list of articles documenting deaths of other people above, so you're encouraged to start nominating articles for deletion. The fist should perhaps be this one because it's a mere list of reactions and documents the death of a person who was below Gorbachev in the Soviet political hierarchy. Alternatively, it's much better to expand this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that (make lists and encourage deletions to make a point). It only takes a minute to nominate something. You asked for it you'll get it. It is disruptive and POINTY. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- GreenC 05:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: Please read my last sentence before blaming me. I know very well what yoi’re talking about.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Merge as per all arguments above; also see WP:BIOSPECIAL.~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 19:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly reasonable grounds for forking given the scale of reporting and worldwide reaction, which would simply not be adequately covered in the Mikhail Gorbachev article itself. When there are reports about the reports or how his death highlights political divisions, it's a good indication of the significance of the issue. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: details that can be added on the main article Gianluigi02 (talk), 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep. This is one of the most notable persons to die in recent times. Death and state funeral of Boris Yeltsin exists as a separate article, and I see no reason to do differently in Gorbachev's case. Was he less important than Yeltsin? I highly doubt so. —Sundostund (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sundostund Personally I think he's more important but I am in favour of deletion for different reasons Stephanie921 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per other arguments. GooseTheGreat (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Noteworthy event and individual. Shouldnt even be a discussion. KingAntenor (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources such as those provided by Goldsztajn indicated his death is notable, controversial, poignant, historically symbolic. The article has not yet fully captured everything it might from those sources thus it needs more time to develop. The delete arguments it can be merged are premature. -- GreenC 05:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)—°[reply]
sepedy keep 2A00:1FA0:46C9:1807:0:6B:63FD:5F01 (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussion: WP:Articles for deletion/Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mikhail Gorbachev#Death. Much of the information here is already included there. Unlike many leaders who had state funerals, few world leaders attended Gorbachev's funeral and thus this article, unlike many of the other comparable articles, does not have a long list of attending dignitaries to include. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage from international sources. More than enough information here to justify a split from the biographical article. And I'm not just referring to the reactions, but I also don't hate reactions sections nearly as much as some other editors do. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No clue how I managed to accidentally overwrite someone else's !vote when posting that, but I apologize. Much thanks to the admin who noticed and restored their comments. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a major event with this much coverage certainly passes WP:N. – Handoto (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ans Production Photography[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. No specific mentions in the listed references other than the GlobeNewswire press release. Found nothing for "Ans Production Photography" or "Ans Photography Group". Couldn't independently verify claims for "several award-winning feature-length documentaries". There's also a declined draft for the company founder Draft:Ansspvt that is sourced to sponsored/puff pieces. KH-1 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Massachusetts. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KH-1 if you please withdraw the nomination request would be great, We are working on this company notability, since this news has been in newspaper, not much in websites that's we cant see much notability but this company did work with documentaries and filmography in MA, USA 209.6.14.186 (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We? Which group? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not seeing evidence of notability. None of the sources I've looked at, save for a press release, seem to mention or credit the company at all. Pure promotion. ASUKITE 04:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ans Production Photography is famous company based in boston mass, This company is there for many years, it been in boston news papers couple of time, they might doesnt have the much news article because this company is working the news channels. 209.6.14.186 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Asukite This is not promotional or anything, This company has been working in filmgraphy. 209.6.14.186 (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see this article's been deleted and returned to draftspace, but the anon IP's assertion that this company is "famous" in Boston is just plain false. A Google search for "Ans Production" specified to the Boston Globe website turns up ZERO hits. A similar search specified to the Boston Herald website turns up ZERO hits. A similar search specified to the Quincy Patriot-Ledger -- Quincy being a significant center for filming these days -- website turns up ZERO hits. What "newspaper" articles are we talking about, yellowed supermarket weeklys? Ravenswing 10:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This commercial wedding photography company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP. A BEFORE search found social media; a search under the name of the founder, Ans Ishfaq, similarly reveals social media but no significant coverage like one would expect of a notable photography firm or a notable photographer. Netherzone (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Referenced sources didn't mention the company at all or were just press releases. Article creator then added citations to spammy sites that must've been published by them. E.g. https://carlossubstain.substack.com/p/carlos was published at 21:42, 31 August 2022 and just 11 mins later added as source to the article. They broke their record later by adding a reference to a spammy piece that had existed since 4 mins only (diff: https://medium.com/@MartinCarlo/ans-production-filmography-ceb70f0b1ae7). – NJD-DE (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any sources or references that meets WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's most basic guidelines for inclusion and retention, and thus should be deleted. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~One of the accounts who worked on this article appears to be engaging in block evasion under at least one IP. Given the potential for socking~~, the deleting admin may want to consider salting. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I took a closer look at the time and the IP has not edited since the other account was blocked, though behavior has been disruptive. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2022 (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!} 04:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Kosack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

May not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics. 747pilot (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 747pilot (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, and Germany. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorrowful delete~~Very Weak keep. I'm afraid the cites on GS do not come up to scratch, even for a very low cited field. Can WP:Author help? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. Reviews of Die legende im Koptischen: [26] [27]. Reviews of Lehrbuch des Koptischen: [28], [29]. To me this meets the bare minimum of WP:AUTHOR (more than one published book with each having more than one published review). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The list of publications, apparently all books, is certainly long enough to keep. I do not read German, so that it is difficult for me to judge their significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Hindi-language television channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A1 TV channel (India)[edit]

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

The two english sources aren't sigcov, the one Hindi source I can google translate is about the founder, not the station, and I can't find anything else. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to List of Hindi-language television channels Yet another Hindi news channel in the Republic TV vein which doesn't have a lot of RS and has a tabloid multi-ticker 'live for the sake of being live' format like Republic and its ilk. Also the "A1" naming is clearly a gaming the system attempt to make it show up atop of program guide searches for news content. Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hindi-language television channels: I am not finding SIGCOV. Given this has already been listed at AfD for a while, it seems unlikely that anyone will find SIGCOV soonish. Redirect, with no prejudice against an article being create iff SIGCOV is found at some point in the future. House Blaster^talk 18:42, 3 September 2022 (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 00:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Francois-Ravalier[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage here and here.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first article appears to be written from the school the subject attended. This means its not independent of the subject. Secondly, the second article mentions the subject once, a clear fail of GNG and SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's player senior international football. Four caps for Grenada so the page should stay. Cam (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course plays for a Caribbean country so the new delete stasi say he must go as those players from little countries are clearly not important enough! Zanoni (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @Ortizesp:, @Zanoni: and @Cazza3012:. He is an internationally capped player with an ongoing career with some sources already and one of few Grenadians ever to play in the United States and outside the Caribbean. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely no evidence of a WP:GNG pass has been presented, sources cited above are literally a school newspaper and a blog. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to no significant coverage. A reminder that that's what we're looking for. Once again, we have the same non-policy-based arguments centring around depreciated guidelines. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The unusable sources offered above are reflective of the wider state of sourcing on the subject: nothing approaching SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Ettienne[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in the Gold Cup, and I think through that tournament got enough coverage to pass GNG. And I think one of the articles surrounding his transfer to Charleston Battery offers more than routine coverage and highlights some of his info such as this and this. Tournament coverage 1, 2.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment N:FOOTBALL is ancient history. It's time to let it go. Taking part in a notable event does not confer automatic notability on the participants. Source 1 is routine coverage of a transfer. Even worse it's a copy and paste of the story from the Battery's website. The source includes info on season membership of Charleston Battery which is strange for a Grenadian website. Source 2 is from the USL which isn't independent of Ettienne. Source 3 is a live blog of a match and therefore unusable. Source 4 is a namedrop. Dougal18 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your premise, and your analysis. I think playing in a noteable tournament makes you noteable despite consensus.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Aren't we here to make policy-based arguments, rather than !voting based on what we personally think is notable? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  So what you're saying is you're going to keep wasting everyone's time with these useless anti-consensus !votes that closers ignore just to make a point? JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @Ortizesp:. He is a young pro and internationally capped player with an ongoing career with some sources already and one of few Grenadians ever to play in the United States and outside the Caribbean. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of significant coverage. I can find nothing in various sources. Daz osmnezz and Ortizesp have not made policy-based arguments for keep. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No GNG coverage has been found; the two sources offered above are an obvious press release and hype from a non-independent org. It's alarming how many delete !votes are necessary to oppose a bloc of NOTHERE tendentious editors whose !votes should just be disregarded outright. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - young, international, ongoing career... irrelevant. What matters is significant coverage, which is sorely lacking. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Tanha Tanha[edit]

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

No indication of notability in the given sources—[4] totally befuddles me—and I couldn't find anything on Google, querying for the film name along with the director and a few of the main actors. Ovinus (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is drama not a film and an average Pakistani drama gets that much coverage mostly. The reference [4] has a passing mention of drama and actor starring, I found a similar source with a passing mention as well [30]. Other sources about the drama I found on Google are of drama aggregating sites and forums which may not be reliable except for this one from review it.pk. So having telecasted on a popular drama channel Hum TV with considerable views it is notable in my opinion. Muneebll (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source I just found of Arab News Pakistan about this drama serial which gives some details. [31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muneebll (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The show aired on a notable network having notable cast and have sources from international sites as well. The article is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. Lillyput4455 (talk) 15:12, 03 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is well referenced article from reliable sources. It passes the notability standard. Vicozico13 (talk) 06:17, 05 September 2022 (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 00:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Awuzie[edit]

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

Promotional article by probably connected contributor. Existing sources are largely non-reliable and do not demonstrate notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The pastoral crypto expert isn't notable. Rather puffy piece, largely non-useful sources.Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Nigeria, and South Africa. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe it meets the criteria for WP:SPEEDY in its current form. Greenman (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As said above, might be COI or UPE, but definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and also delete. Spam. - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per delete votes. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Promotional stuff. Jamiebuba (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2022 (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.