Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 19	February 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost World of the Crystal Skull

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as coverage is sparse, only minor awards mentioned and nothing else found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This IMDb discussion mentions this movie, specifically in that there seems to be some hoaxing or something going on. Not sure if anything in this article is a hoax, but I suppose it's something to watch out for with this director. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find much of anything about this film. AFAIK this film does seem to exist but it looks to fail notability guidelines. It has a couple of awards, one from the Waterford Film Festival, but none of them are enough to keep on that basis alone. Other than that the only coverage I can find is an article about it being picked up, which even with the awards in mind wouldn't be enough to justify keeping the article. If there was an article about the director then perhaps, but it doesn't seem like there's much coverage for him either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my vote is also delete. I didn’t find any coverage that could support notability for films. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:15, 21 February 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. Setting aside the procedural issues, the substance of this is quite clear cut; the primary argument for deletion is that GNG is not met; and this has not been refuted. Multiple sources provided at the previous AfD, which keep !voters there and here refer to, are unreliable per WP:RSP; the argument that the rest are not substantive is persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Schaffer

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

I'm not sure the subject meets WP:N general notability guidelines. He appears to have gotten some media attention on Fox News for interviewing Kyle Rittenhouse before the shootings, plus media criticism coverage from Mediaite where Schaffer complained about Zionist influence. Everything else is from non-RSs: right-wing blogs and similar publications (National File, PJ Media). In short: I don't think the above stories amount to the level of substantial or sustained coverage necessary for a BLP. Ich (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At the time I created this AFD, I wasn't aware it had been listed a month ago. Revisiting the previous AFD listing, Such-change47 provided a set of links. Out of the four links, I judge MEAWW to be clearly non-RS, and Blaze Media is Schaffer's employer. Mashable and the Daily Beast are okay as sources as per WP:RSP but I still don't think this is enough RS coverage for a BLP. Also pinging Kiwichris and DFXYME who participated last time.-Ich (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ich (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Ich (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative close as per WP:RENOM, this only closed as keep two weeks ago. Wait, address with closer Liz, or take it to DRV instead. Sorry you didn't see it before starting this, but the Old AFD notice does appear to be on the article talk page as is customary. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete assuming no additional coverage found. Also found these articles [1] [2] which I deem reliable enough to count for N, but these are just passing mentions. This individual may become notable in the future, but there just does not seem to be sufficient coverage today. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there was an AFD as recent as a month ago, and it is normally bad practice to renominate such an article for deletion so soon... WP:CCC states: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. As there was a) limited participation in the prior AFD, b) as the nomination argument here is distinctly different than the prior one, and as c) commentary now refutes some of the sources provided in the prior AFD... I think it is reasonable to allow this to remain open for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surprised to see this article immediately renominated after the closure of the first AFD which, except for the nominator, was unanimous in wanting to Keep the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC) It sounds like a reassessment of the article sources, and additional ones proposed for it, warrants further review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It doesn't seem like this page would quite meet GNG based on the sources in the article or the ones found in the previous afd. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Not seeing WP:BIO. We have two sources about how he participated in the storming of the capitol and a couple mediaite posts. It's not nothing, but it's not quite enough. There's also a WP:BLP issue in that if we base this article on those sources, it would be entirely negative. As for the previous AfD, someone linked to four sources, two of them in unreliable sources, and two other people "per"ed them. The last person added five more unreliable sources (for the purposes of notability anyway). Obviously it couldn't be deleted based on what participation there was, but a very low quality discussion is a fine reason to renominate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator should've taken the previous discussion to the WP:DRV in the first place instead of renominating it a couple of weeks after it was closed. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was agreed to be kept last month. Article is still good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated in the previous discussion. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources in particular from the previous discussion help satisfy GNG? They have been contested in this discussion, so I am curious which you see as strong. Freelance-frank (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per the discussion of previous AFD and the above i changed my vote from last Delete to Keep. The references somewhere meets WP:BASIC. DFXYME (talk) 13:05, 25 February 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 00:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob VanAlkemade

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

I'm not convinced the subject meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly sure either, despite a quick check, but redirecting to What Would Jesus Buy? is reasonable if he's found non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything about him. At present he doesn't meet notability. Chelokabob (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to What Would Jesus Buy? or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person might have worked for reputed channels but that alone should not make him notable. There would be thousands of people like that. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:17, 21 February 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 00:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda Institute Of Higher Education, Najafgarh

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL (no reliable sources) and is written like a WP:PROMO. Previous (2014) AFD failed due to lack of participation. Headphase (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any in-depth coverage for this school. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage that proves notability. And very much of marketing language used. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:16, 21 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hunter (CEO)

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

Very poorly sourced biography of a living person. The article is ineligible for PROD because it was briefly prodded in 2011. —S Marshall T/C 23:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 23:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 23:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If closed as "delete" we'll need to make an appropriate edit to Tim Hunter (disambiguation).—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, none of the associated companies (Duke Media, Chairman Agency, Cinema Fresh, and Music News Weekly) has an article, and there is no significant claim about him rather than his companies. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, no. A7 is for things that don't assert any importance. There are plenty of credible claims of significance in the article, even though I see nothing in it rising to the level of notability at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strange to see CEO in bracket. All CEOs are not notable. It is a tag people can give to themselves even after starting a small company. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO Paul W (talk) 09:58, 22 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Dervishi

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

Fails the GNG. The only sources available are, at best, questionable and likely constitute covert advertising: they have no named author on the byline and are nothing but uncritical interviews or promotion. There is no coverage in sources that are genuinely reliable and independent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Entertainment, and Internet. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage for the GNG. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and non-notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:34, 23 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chico–Redding, California

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

We do not have articles on individual television markets in the United States, and this one is not notable on its own. Further, the definitions of TV markets are proprietary information. In 2008, we were slapped with an OTRS ticket for overuse of TV Designated Market Area information from Nielsen Media Research, so this is more sensitive a topic than it might appear on first blush.

There is already a navbox and a category for this market, which should suffice as navigation. This article does not need to be here, and having it here creates other concerns because of the Nielsen issue. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to copyright concerns, and failing WP:GNG as well. The cities of Chico and Redding, California, are often mentioned together, but not in the context of television demographics or as an otherwise defined region. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's List of United States television markets but individual media markets are not notable. Reywas92^Talk 22:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Fails WP:GNG . Alex-h (talk) 16:49, 22 February 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 23:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Benjelloun

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

Not notable. He is the grandson of a billionaire and is a venture capitalist himself. Neither makes him notable. I debated about redirecting to his grandfather's article or the company's article, but decided to take it to AfD and see what the consensus was. Singularity42 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find even a shred of media coverage. If a reliable source can link him with his alleged grandfather Othman Benjelloun, then I'm happy with redirect but, for now, deletion is the only valid outcome. LinkedIn is a completely unacceptable source for a businessperson BLP. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The creator of the article has repeatedly blanked the article page since this AfD started. There's an anon editor who has contributed substantially to the article - if they are the same person, this article would qualify for speedy deletion under G7. That being said, I am going to keep this AfD up, as I think it is better to go through this now, rather than speedy delete under G7 only for the article to get recreated a short time later. Singularity42 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with deleting the article because it is a well-known figure in the family — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.140.164.78 (talk) 12:45, 26 February 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 snow keep per the sources listed and a unanimous consensus among votes. Closing early when nominator appears to have withdrawn this and conceded to other opinions (non-admin closure). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Distance (Mariah Carey song)

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

Article is not notable per WP:NSONGS - yes it charted but almost all of the information is already or could be merged to the parent album page ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The following sources focus on the song (i.e. independent of an album review): Rolling Stone, Spin, Slant Magazine, The Guardian, Pitchfork, Variety, The Fader, Idolator, and Rap-Up. This seems like evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources to me. The article needs to be improved, but that is not a reason for an AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note to future participants to this discussion, the article's talk page also has plenty of citations to support the song's notability, which were provided by @MaranoFan:. Aoba47 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple notable and independent sources as provided by Aoba47. The song itself has gained more coverage than other individual songs by the singer or most other songs. Deserves its own article.InfiNeuro (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, InfiNeuro the state of other articles unless GA/FA is not relevant (WP:OTHERSTUFF). ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Many thanks to Aoba47 for summoning me. The multitude of standalone articles about the song from reliable secondary sources would suggest notability. It is unfortunate that despite the list on the article's talk page no one bothered to expand it in three years! Hopefully someone (maybe me when I get time) gets around to it.--N Ø 19:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if there is notability, I still think articles need to have the possibility of sufficient content to standalone. In this case, the content I've seen in the unused sources tells me there is a lot the article can be expanded with, the level of detail of which would be inappropriate in the main album article. Heartfox (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In light of everyone's comments, can we snow keep? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:04, 25 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ameen Phillip

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, as he has only played/coached in non-fully pro leagues. Fails WP:GNG as, as far as I can see, coverage is routine (transfer-related, and the sort). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Iraqi League is not considered professional per WP:FPL. Caphadouk (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No professional record, fails WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn’t meet the policy for football players. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:38, 23 February 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 23:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Wayne (Batverse character)

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

Fails WP:N by a longshot. This article is nothing but a fork of The Batman (film)—the vast majority of the information in here is copy-and-pasted unaltered from that article, and what isn't is nothing more than unsourced fancruft, a coatrack for in-universe information, and pure speculation (the film isn't even out yet!). JOE BRO 64 18:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated in the nom, this is an unnecessary WP:FORK of The Batman (film) with most of the sourced content copied from that article, and a healthy sprinkling of WP:OR on top of that. As the movie this version of Batman is debuting in is not even released yet, it seems to be WP:TOOSOON for separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This may be notable enough to get an article one day, but it is too soon for now as the film has not even been released. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the need for this page. Popcornfud (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Batman (film). I know I'm the odd one out here, but I believe redirects are better than deletion when a plausible redirect can be made. Sumanuil 22:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Batman (film) as per Sumanuil. The sole purpose of redirects is to leave a trail leading to relevant information from that deleted article. I was almost leaning towards draftifying the article, but then again, a redirect would be more useful at this point, at least until the film gets released and the article gains slightly more relevance, at which point it could potentially be re-created in draft form. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 22:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with Redirecting is that the term "Batverse" is not yet even the official term for this version of the character. The phrase was used offhandidly by Matt Reeves in a single interview while discussing his hopes for the franchise, and does not appear to be any kind of official designation. In fact, the term is not even used at all in the actual article on The Batman (film). Hence, I have strong doubts on how plausible of a redirect this actually would be. Rorshacma (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point there, but is there an official term? Sumanuil 02:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, no. I'd also like to add that I'd probably oppose this article being recreated after the film is out, too. It's still going to be a fork with little that wouldn't be outside The Batman's scope. JOE BRO 64 03:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I see Rorshacma and TheJoebro64's points. Moving to Delete. If necessary, a new redirect can be created after deletion anyway. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 09:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show it has any real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with arguments made above. This article also fails to meet WP:ATTREQ for the forking. I didn’t even know what Batverse was supposed to mean, so I doubt the casual searcher will either. Maybe it will catch on, but it’ll take some time, and for a single movie so far, the main page is sufficient. —2pou (talk) 16:56, 25 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Carrboro, North Carolina

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

List of not notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carrboro has roughly 20,000 people, and is thus dwarfed by its neighbor Chapel Hill, with just over 60,000 people. We have articles on 2 mayors, one because she was later a member of the state legislature. The other it is less clear, and I am less than sure the other even passes notability. Nothing to suggest we need an article listing all the mayors of this place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your statement on Lydia Lavelle? She definitely drew a lot of media attention. Shouldn't our notability reflect that? Are you aware that we are already at 3 mayors with articles? Do you believe others are notable as well? If so, which ones? gidonb (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-referenced list. It provides historic and encyclopedic information that is too detailed for the main article. It can also serve as a redirect target for mayors that are not always notable. The fact that the mayors are not automatically notable was already pointed out by others. gidonb (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Among the reasons for keep I will add that the list already has three notable mayors with their own articles, strongly undermining the premise of this AfD. Most likely, additional mayors are notable as well. This list helps navigating to real articles and puts these in historic perspective. gidonb (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We need reliable sources to support a list like this, not primary ones, but three of the four footnotes are the latter. And while the fourth is real media, one reliable source isn't enough all by itself to support a list of almost entirely non-notable people, since it only supports one name in the list. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just wrote an article on a third mayor, Michael R. Nelson. There seems to be some talk of how, starting with Nelson, Carrboro's seen a total of three gay/queer mayors, all in recent history and how that's a somewhat unique trend, especially in North Carolina. Not really sure that's enough to make this list notable, but it might help to look for sources along that line. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome article, Indy beetle! I agree that the LGBTQ factor contributes to the media interest into recent Carrboro mayors. gidonb (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list looks notable enough to exist on Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While the mayors themselves are mostly not WP:NPOL, inclusion of their names in a reasonably referenced list like this seems acceptable. However, the information should probably go into a section on the page Carrboro, North Carolina, and not be a separate page. Perhaps use an expanding section (show/hide) if the aesthetics and balance of the page is impacted, per MOS:COLLAPSE, or delete if that's not acceptable. Chumpih ^t 03:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Not a notable town with notable mayors. KidAd • SPEAK 22:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three mayors have articles at present and probably more are notable. Shouldn't our recommendations be information driven? gidonb (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have to throw some cold water on that, Carborro is a small town famous in NC for its hipster character, but not for its political leadership. Eleanor Kinnaird has an article due to her status as a state senator, not as mayor. I tried to demonstrate Michael R. Nelson's notability because he got press coverage outside of the region and by state and national LGBT publications for being the first gay mayor in NC. Lydia Lavelle seems to have been written for similar reasons, though the article's current sourcing doesn't demonstrate an imprint beyond Orange County. As I suggested before, searches for state and national media attention due to the town's recent LGBT mayoral leadership might produce some material, but we can't just assume it exists. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies Wikipedia:LISTPURP and Wikipedia:SALAT and Wikipedia:LISTPEOPLE Djflem (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flipping obvious merge to Carrboro, North Carolina. When the only significant source is a list drawn up for the town centennial, it shows we've gone way past the limits of notability. There's no need for a separate list. I wouldn't oppose outright deletion either, given that it's just a list of names with no other information. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the three recent mayors of some slight note are not a justification for the other eighty-plus years of apparently barely recorded officials. It's a safe bet that the city article already notes the several firsts anyway. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your "safe bet" is wrong, but since the article is so small a merge probably could be done under the "Government" section. I agree that there is probably little of note about most of the mayors up to the 1990s. Merging the list though would be preferable to deletion. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe there is value for this project to keep verifiable lists like this one, even if based on primary sources. I think this type of list may overwhelm the main city article, but I am supportive of a merge to preserve the information. That all said, we should have a community-wide discussion about the appropriateness of these lists. --Enos733 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There's two separate questions to be considered here; whether the topic meets WP:LISTN, and whether a standalone page is needed at all regardless of notability. The notability of individual mayors does not directly impinge on either of these questions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Carrboro, North Carolina. There's no text, so there's no context. Think about it: if someone was looking for information on mayors of Carrboro, would they look under "L" or "C"? Lamona (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable, referenced list. Several mayors already have articles. I'm not sure how a merge would work. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced list, as noted above several notable people even have articles. Hindijux (talk) 15:03, 1 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nima-Mamobi gang violence

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

NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 11:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please it is a news. It occurred in Nima. Videos even circulated on social media involving the violence. Thanks daSupremo

22:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEVENTS, and, as DGG said, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. casualdejekyll (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: page moved to 2022 Nima-Mamobi Gang Violence. If kept, the page will need to be moved again. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOT#NEWS with strictly news cycle coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This clearly meets the WP:NEVENTS criteria, this is a very notable event that has change a lot in the Nima Mamobi community. One of the major criteria for WP:NEVENTS is this "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and this event meets that completely. Owula kpakpo (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NEVENTS- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 19:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your comment 'Not News' does not provide a enough reasons [constructive feedback] for it to be deleted. You might have to connect it to a Wikipedia clause which defines why it is 'Not News' for public education. Just as Owula kpakpo (talk) explained, this article qualifies per Wikipedia's WP:NEVENTS. This isn't a 'normal news item' but a major incident which has happened. You can read more about the subject to understand it. Similar shooting incidence being developed for Wikipedia are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ayawaso_West_by-election, etc. Uprising Man (talk)

The key difference is WP:LASTING effects and interest, for which evidence is not provided. As for the Christchurch attack, it has a much wider geographic scope, especially because it inspired later copycat and retaliation attacks around the world. A parliamentary by-election generally generates a durable impact. As I stated above, this gang clash as not broken out of the news cycle. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for "not news," WP:What Wikipedia is not is Wikipedia policy, and WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper/WP:NOT#NEWS is enumerated in that policy. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: lets keep as WP:NEVENTS focus on notability and this is a notable event with significant coverage.Jwale2 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article has been moved again, this time back to Nima-Mamobi gang violence. Please leave the article in place until the AfD discussion is closed. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is no clear consensus to delete, the keep !votes have asserted that the article meets WP:NEVENTS without providing evidence as to why the article meets the guideline. Relisting to provide an opportunity for evidence of notability to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems like merging to Maamobi is a plausible WP:ATD here. Suriname0 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the sources used, the media reports are not even sure whether or not anyone was killed in this violence or the extent of the injuries to people. With this much ambiguity about what actually happened, and much of the event occurring on social media and not in the real world, I don't think there is much value in keeping this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks evidence of a WP:LASTING impact in order to meet WP:NEVENTS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:41, 20 February 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. After a thorough discussion of available sources, rough consensus is that this mythological figure is not verifiable through reliable sources. Sandstein 13:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lona (mythology)

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

The Hawaiian dictionaries do not mention a goddess under lona (cf. Pukui/Elbert: [3]; Andrews: [4], [5]; Parker: [6], [7]). The standard references for Hawaiian mythology refer to Hina and do not mention any Lona (cf. Beckwith and Westervelt). Jan Knappert, the Dutch author of the referenced Pacific mythology: an encyclopedia of myth and legend published about African and Asian mythology preferably and nothing in any Polynesian language. Therefore the references are not trustworthy enough. ThT (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not buying the argument that we should delete an article on the basis that it is not mentioned by certain sources. To start off with, not being in dictionaries is fairly meaningless when we are talking about a minor diety rather than a word. The link to the Westervelt source is in a work titled Legends of Maui: and His Mother Hina. Since our article makes no claim that Lona was Maui's mother (or even mention him at all) there is no obvious reason why we should expect to see her in there. That just leaves Lona's omission from Martha Beckwith's rather old (1940) work as the evidence that "Lona" is an error. Against that there is the Knappert source in the article. Belittling Jan Knappert because he mostly published about Africa doesn't wash. He is obviously a skilled linguist with Hawiian included in his multiple degrees and his relevant work here is reliably published by Harper-Collins. If that was the only place Lona was mentioned there would be a good argument here, but it isn't. I'm seeing Lona in multiple sources. This book for instance mentions her – published by Springer who in other cicumstances their reliability would not be questioned. If a source is unearthed that positively asserts this is an error then I might reconsider, but not on the curent evidence. SpinningSpark 17:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for referring to the dubious citation Beckwith, pp. 214-25 which seems to verify the statement It is likely that Lona is another name for the Moon goddess Hina. The chapter Hina Myths in Beckwith's Hawaiian mythology (pp. 214-225) doesn't mention the name Lona at all, however this would be one of the important sources to check and the page numbers as well as Hina point to the work of Martha Beckwith:
Beckwith, Martha W.: Hawaiian Mythology. Reprinted in Honolulu (Univ. of Hawaii Press), 1996.

In the introduction Katharine Luomala, professor of Anthropology, wrote in 1969: it was the first, and is still the only, scholarly work which charts a pathway through the hundreds of books and articles, many of them obscure and scarce, and through the little-known manuscripts that record the orally transmitted myths, legends, traditions, folktales, and romances of the Hawaiian people. (p. VII) The Univ. of Hawaii Press reprinted the book again in 1996.

The citation in Myths, Symbols and Legends of Solar System Bodies (by Rachel Alexander, ISBN 9781461470670) cannot be verified, because only the fragment of the simple statement Lona in Hawaiian mythology was a is visible. However this book is an amateur astronomer’s guide to the mythology and symbolism associated with the celestial bodies in the Solar System, and even includes some of the legendary tales of people who had or have a connection with these objects. Therefore it is not a reliable source for Hawaiian mythology.

Meanwhile I checked an important primary source as well: David Kalakaua. The Legends and Myths of Hawaii: The Fables and Folk-Lore of a Strange People. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, 1999. Again, there's no mention of any Lona

WP:WHYCITE requires that the information given is supported by reliable source. Because Lona is not mentioned in any of the scholarly sources about Hawaiian mythology reliable sources are still needed.

Moreover WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage, which is more than a trivial mention. Therefore trivial mentions in books or other sources are not sufficient for notability.

Best, --ThT (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that a citation cannot be verified because you personally cannot read it is patently untrue. The book exists. The book exists in libraries. The book exists in libraries that anyone can go in to read it. So in theory anyone can verify it, and in practice one person at least (me) has read the entire entry. I accessed it online fine, your lack of computer skills is entirely your own problem, not Wikipedia's. Also, I never claimed the coverage in that book was significant (although it is certainly more than a passing mention), and Knappert's coverage is certainly significant.Spinning Spark 20:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the relevant passage in Myths, Symbols and Legends of Solar System Bodies reads:
"Other Moon deities are female personifications of the Moon. Lona in Hawaiian mythology was a Moon goddess who, perhaps unwisely, fell passionately in love with a man by the name of Aikanaka. They lived happily ever after, at least for many years. They were finally separated by the death of the mortal. This is quite unusual for a goddess."
I wouldn't consider this a reliable source for our purposes. There are no sources cited, and the author is an English teacher, not an expert in Hawaiian folklore. She very probably got this information from Wikipedia in the first place. You might be surprised how often that happens, even in books from normally-trustworthy publishers. Dan from A.P. (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Dan from A.P. (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my vote: I agree that the Knappert source is reliable, but the GNG calls for sources, plural. I discount the Rachel Alexander book discussed above, and I'm not prepared to AGF on the Ramesh Chopra source cited in the article, given the previous issues with failed verification. So I'm still only seeing one useable source. Dan from A.P. (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ON balance, there seems to be some issues with the sources. I would note, its not necessarily up to us to decide with a source is an RS or not - that should really be decided by the RS noticeboard. If the noticeboard validates that source, then it may well stay in and substantiate the content. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could verify the Knappert source and add the page number. And it is a reliable source from a reliable author, as Spinningspark already mentioned, and I can't see any evidence to the contrary. Just because something is not mentioned in a particular source can hardly be considered deletion criteria, as the nom suggests. Ciridae (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if we can get less sniping about computer skills and more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the problem here is that Beckwith et al. are talking about the Ai-kanaka and Hina from Hawaiian mythology, which is a very different story to what Knappert relates. Moreover, Knappert specificially says "north Polynesian" not "Hawaiian" as xe does in other entries. These are two different myths, with the one related by Beckwith having nothing to do with a man being carried off to a "White Kingdom". Knappert has the Beckwith one in xyr entry for "Mahina" on page 174, and labels that one "Hawaiian". And Knappert's entry for "Ai-kanaka" just points to both of those.
The problem here is that we have exactly one source, discounting the 21st century fantasy novel than almost quotes Knappert verbatim, for the "north Polynesian" mythical person; compounded by the fact that the one source devotes a mere three sentences to this subject. Worse, it's an Aquarian Press source. (You've all got the 1995 Diamond reprint, the original 1992 publisher was Aquarian.) Let's just say that Aquarian Press, publisher of Douglas Baker's 1977 Practical Techniques of Astral Projection and Rodney Davies' 1987 The ESP Workbook: How to Awaken and Use Your Psychic Powers, is not exactly academically rigorous. Aquarian got Knappert to do three "Aquarian guides" to "African", "Indian", and "Pacific" mythology over the space of as many years, and none of them are exactly scholarly in format. (Notice that when Knappert actually wrote in xyr field of expertise, about Swahili, xe went to Heinemann Educational Books and BRILL.)
For what it's worth, my educated guess is that Alexander almost certainly got this information from Knappert's book, but changed "Polynesian" to "Hawaiian", even though Knappert draws this distinction between the two Ai-kanaka myths. Aquarian Press was in Wellingborough, according to a quick Google Books search, and Alexander's book-jacket blurb says that xe grew up in Nottingham, so Aquarian Press books were probably around. Ironically, Alexander's publisher, Springer Science+Business Media, has a far better reputation than Knappert's publisher does.
But that does mean that we really don't have a good source for either this or the major parts of Aikanaka (mythology) which are also based upon Knappert's Aquarian Press book.
This is only sourceable to a minor mention in one exceedingly dodgy Aquarian Press book. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- With thanks to ThT and Uncle G for their exhaustive analysis of this, I agree that the sourcing, based on their research, is not sufficient to back up this article. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:57, 21 February 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. The argument that this is a BLP1E has not really been refuted and no real suggestion that there is the enduring coverage to overcome that. I’d suggest keep voters revisit in a while and if they can show enduring coverage after the court case has finished then we can discuss whether this should come back. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Herrin

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

Fails WP:PERP. Generic. It is essentially WP:BLP1E and fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 03:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either this biography passes WP:GNG, or otherwise, we can rename the article to "Bayshore Boulevard streetrace collision" and reframe this content to focus on the event. Most or all of the coverage names and describes this person though, with much less coverage of the event itself or any of the several other people involved. News reports have been continuous from 2018 till present, like in this timeline from 2018-2021 which summarizes 20+ other news stories. We have Tampa Bay Times Jun. 1, 2018 giving a biography of the person. Before this event, the person was a tiktok celebrity with two million followers and was said to post streetracing videos to tiktok [8] [9], all since deleted, so his conviction for streetracing seems to be in a context where he was known for this activity. Following the trial a research team identified a fake botnet fanbase to advocate for him, but also this is among a real fanbase. The case is itself being used in journalism to discuss other issues including social privileges and technology. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It all stems from the one event. Without that event, none of it would happened, which is the very definition of WP:BLP1E. The citations above have to remind their reader who the person; it is the description of transitory. scope_creep^Talk 14:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Can you say more about how WP:BLP1E applies? There are three criteria there: single event, low profile, and not well documented. I am seeing 4 years of regular media coverage from multiple sources, a social media celebrity whose face and name are published continuously, and discussions about this person's lifestyle outside of the event. Why you find that BLP1E is a fit here? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a clear case of WP:PERP. And since the event itself had no long-lasting effects, renaming the article is inappropriate as well. And as scope_creep as already pointed out, this is also a case of WP:BIOIE.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: There have been multiple long lasting community changes at Bayshore Boulevard where the collision occurred, and now the event is a matter of local history. Sources [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] These are all about the community; I think that other changes include the social discussions about subject of the biography also. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable incident. His court case is widely popular worldwide and reported on international media. The plenty of coverage by mainstream news source found. I also support to rename to Bayshore Boulevard streetrace collision . VocalIndia (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a pretty notable incident with long lasting effects -- however, considering the page focuses more on him, and not the notable incident that he took major part in, i think it's better if we rename it and then change the content accordingly to discuss the recent happenings at Bayshore Boulevard. Synesthesium (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable. It is a completly common event. scope_creep^Talk 23:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a crime, there is nothing here is fundamentally different from the many types of crime that happen across the world on a daily basis. The event is completly generic, so common that it is not commented on. It regular mundane thing. The long changes argument is utterly facile. That happens everywhere as well. As soon as there is a big road accident, the police are notified, the roads people are notified and roads stuture are changed to lessen the accident. That happens everywhere in the western world, to make the chance accident happening again. The Precautionary Principle kicks earlier to straighten and removing obstacles for years. An example would be the babies that are getting beating up and killed in the UK. The Tik Tok content is an so shallow, because it is typical social fare, no understanding of law. The subject didn't have article based on their social media. But even if they did, they would not still notable for this, because it is such a common event. Here is an example:
Larger than life
Crash

It is a common happening every day, all over the world. It varies, but the common elements are there. scope_creep^Talk 23:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your comment. This incident is world-wide interesting case. Also hit in India, Hindi language media also reported about this case. Here is some coverages in notable ways [15] and [16]. VocalIndia (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin Post is a US paper with affiliate content and the 1st reference doesn't seem to be about him. scope_creep^Talk 17:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the boy is notable. The person might not be notable but it has gained international attention. The incident is clearly notable, being the subject of worldwide coverage...So enough to meet WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a online newespaper based in New York. Of course you can read it in India, you can read it anywhere on the planet. That doesn't make it international coverage. If a local paper picked it up, like for example, The Times of India, then it would be international coverage. There is a fundamental difference. The root of the argument is that is common occurance. It is common in India, more common, because India has a mountain of accidents, than mostly anywhere. It happens everywhere, everyday. And because papers have a duty to report, doesn't make it notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! Clearly WP:IDONTLIKE whatever that is your opinion not me. Well, "Mohini Sigh killed in a toilet of Indian Parliament", that her death case will report on intermedia? definitely will not because it is a common event. VocalIndia (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It not a case WP:IDONTLIKE. Do you not read papers? Your haven't dissproved the central tenet, which is the crime happen's everywhere. The same kind of events happen everywhere with slight variations. They are not standalone unique events. Knife crime in London is a classic example. It is often a stabbing, done by same type of person, for the same reason, intergang warfare or revenge, or turf war. scope_creep^Talk 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:SIGCOV. More than 20 citations are from a single source. Moreover, the incident is too generic. --NeverTry4Me - TT page 19:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per VocalIndia's arguments. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear WP:BLP1E case. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear failure of BLP1E, and there's no long lasting non-news impact of the accident. Further social media traction isn't a good indication of notability. Star Mississippi 17:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it might be better, to write an article on the crash and redirect this article to that, instead of having an article on the perpetrator, because he is only notable for one event. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. I Agree with GoldenBootWizard276. Rewrite the article on the crash. That guy is not likely notable but the incident is worldwide known case. Taung Tan (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident is notable and verifiable. The article should be renamed to reflect the incident.InfiNeuro (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like a transcript of his court case, beyond that, I'm thinking it's just a routine crime. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine crime coverage is not enough for notability. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A unique notable case with enough coverage. Alex-h (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatantly fails WP:BLP1E. The arguments that it is notable and significant are not supported by the sources, which are almost exclusively from two publications and are largely just brief, routine crime coverage. The argument that we could have an article about the crash seems obviously absurd. Herrin is clearly a low-profile individual; and there's no particular indication that the incident had any long-term significance or notability, just a rush of breathless articles (almost exclusively from Fox and the Tampa Bay Times) followed by the usual updates on a court case's progression. This is plainly not sufficient to support or justify its own article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 1 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rei Prendi

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

This topic Not has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Trivial mentions are not enough.WP:Notability Malikul Mout (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Malikul Mout (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Albania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the only sources I can find are labeled as "promoted content", "brand partner content", "syndicated press content", or similar terms making clear that the content is not independent. There's no indication whatsoever that Prendi has received significant coverage from genuinely independent sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article and not at all notable as per policies. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article which does not satisfy WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 25 February 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.

Tim Atchison

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 Nomination withdrawn. Mr Atchison's article has been somewhat improved, and now has sources which—although far from wonderful—are at least a plausible basis for a biography of a living person. This AfD detected a copyright violation which has now been revdelled; in closing this discussion I assume without checking that the deleting sysop complied with the first limb of WP:CRD when he did so. I will revisit this when and if the community ever decides that the GNG and/or BLP1E apply to sportspeople.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insufficiently-sourced biography of a living person. —S Marshall T/C 15:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 15:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, played in the National Football League, thus meets WP:NGRIDIRON, see [17]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable only for that one event?—S Marshall T/C 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event. So BLP1E doesn't apply here. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course, I forgot that our normal notability rules don't apply to sportspeople.—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this patronizing sarcasm really necessary? Etzedek24 was citing actual WP guidelines to support BeanieFan11's !vote. I know this is your nomination, and I can understand why you nominated it, but keep it civil. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 21:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability rules don't apply to sportspeople. They've got special exemptions from the GNG and, as we learn above, also from BLP1E. How is it uncivil to say so?—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (probably also draftify): Found this as a piece of SIGCOV but am thinking this may be a candidate for draftification. He was a single game PS elevation and I'm having trouble quickly finding proper sources outside of PFR. The nominator is right to want better sourcing in a BLP, so draftifying may be our best option. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to properly source the article if no one else is willing to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, I'm inclined to !vote draftify, but I'd rather wait to see if you can find some SIGCOV first. Can you ping me when you have a chance to search? SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 17:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spf121188: The article is now fully sourced. Cbl62 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BeanieFan11-- Yankees10 18:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the time of nomination, the article was a low-quality piece largely copied from Atchison's on-line Baylor biography. I've added a number of additional sources to the article which now passes WP:GNG -- in addition to passing WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: The nomination (as "insufficiently sourced" for a living person) was understandable give the article's poor quality and BLP concerns. The article has since been improved with reliable-source citations for each and every factual assertion. Accordingly, might you consider withdrawing so that all can move on to more productive matters? Cbl62 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's undoubtedly an improvement in terms of notability. I think that all the local newspaper coverage fails WP:ROUTINE, but it does verify some of the claims you make. I have two remaining questions, and they are, (1) What makes big12sports.com a reliable source considering their financial connection to the industry they're promoting? and (2) When you identified the text as a copyvio of [18], shouldn't you have blanked the page and tagged it with {{copyvio}}? I don't think we're allowed to keep copyvios in the article history and I suspect that strictly speaking this content may be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G12.—S Marshall T/C 20:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it best to remove the old version from the history, I have no objection. I didn't verify whether it was a direct copy/paste from the Baylor bio, but it appears to have been based largely on that work. As for big12sports.com, I think it's not really debatable that a conference made up of prestigious universities is a "reliable" source -- I suspect you're really going after its "independence". Finally, your assertion that all local newspaper coverage (including feature articles) should be rejected as WP:ROUTINE fails because (i) in-depth coverage such as that found here is the very antithesis of "routine" coverage, (ii) WP:ROUTINE applies on its face to events and not biographies, (iii) repeated proposals to impose a bar on the use of local coverage have been rejected with the sole exception of WP:AUD in the context of companies, (iv) media outlets like The Dallas Morning News' are regional in nature; and (v) the fact that you are dredging up an entirely new deletion rationale after your original BLP grounds were resolved makes it appear that you just DONTLIKEIT and are straining to find any basis for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I "think it best" to remove the old version; it's just that I'm vaguely aware of copyright as a consideration and I've read our pages about copyright a couple of times. I'd normally seek advice from one of our sysops, who are meant to enforce these things and therefore ought to know about them, or if I wasn't the AfD nominator I'd flag it with {{copyvio-revdel}}. I'm sorry you think I'm "dredging up" some new grounds here, but it was in fact you who identified the copyvio, and I do think copyright compliance is important.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at the copyvio issue on the prior version. While not an outright, complete copypaste, there was usage of some of the precise language from the BU bio with minor paraphrasing. I've endeavored to remove such verbiage from the current text, but you raise a valid point about possible revision deletion on the prior version. I've left a note for our copyright specialists at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems seeking further clarification on the revdel point. BTW, my comment about dredging up new issues had to do with your attempt to apply WP:ROUTINE as a basis for ignoring SIGCOV now found in the article. That comment had nothing to do with the possible COPYVIO (which I in fact raised). Copyright violation is a serious issue, and you are correct to point it out. Cbl62 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of an abundance of caution, I did revdel the prior version. Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep in its current state, the article and sources show a clear pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you, Cbl62 for letting me know about the new sources. This meets GNG. I know there are plenty of users who truly believe articles of NFL players who played in one game shouldn't be here, but I think this subject passes GNG with ease. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 21:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per everyone's comments excluding the nominator. It does have have a couple pieces of minor cleanup it needs which I'll do after posting this.--Rockchalk7 17 23:52, 20 February 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 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mwiya Malumo

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

Re-listing this individually as per previous discussion.

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as we have done in other similar AFDs. Giant Snowman 16:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 21 February 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 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will McGuffie

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

Re-listing this individually as per previous discussion.

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as we have done in other similar AFDs. Giant Snowman 16:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 21 February 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 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Culshaw

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

Re-listing this individually as per previous discussion.

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as we have done in other similar AFDs. Giant Snowman 16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 21 February 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 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Plant

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

Re-listing this as per previous discussion.

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as we have done in other similar AFDs. Giant Snowman 16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as a valid WP:ATD. Note: the previous AFD was a procedural keep as it involved multiple players, so should have no bearing on this individual nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - fails GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 15:35, 22 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bang-Maithili

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

An article about a dialect of Maithili (or one intermediate with Bengali). I don't know if it exists, but so far it has been impossible to find sources about a dialect with this name (see also the talk page). – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. – Uanfala (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but there do not seem to be WP:RS that support the article, at least with this name. It's possible the dialect/language is known by a different name in academic literature or that there are reliable non-English-language sources available, but unfortunately nothing has been offered up. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was created with bogus sources (entirely made up sources or real sources not supporting the existence of the subject). As long as we're not presented with reliable sources, the default assumptions are either that the subject itself is spurious, or that the page title is a made-up name for something that may exist under a different name (and maybe is already covered here in WP). –Austronesier (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has a tag already as no any reference is attach to the article. I wonder how the article stays longer without deletion. Katobara (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of not providing reliable sources. B203GTB (talk) 07:40, 23 February 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 00:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hammond (researcher)

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

Self-promotional, likely self-edited, and unsourced material. Independent, third-party sources are wholly insufficient to support Wikipedia biography. Don't call me shorely (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Politics, and Biology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:18, 24 February 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 00:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volodymyr Levykin

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

Because this has been moved previously to draft space (twice!) my desire to draftify would mean I would be move warring. Thus I am required to bring it to AfD because I am unable to edit it to address my concerns.

The article purports to be about the person, but is about the corporation. As a draft I would have declined it with that rationale, suggesting it be either or both split into two, assuming the person to be notable, for the person and the corporation, or repurposed to be about the corporation alone assuming the person not to be notable.

I am nominating it to be Returned to Draft and only to be moved to main space after a review. I note and agree with the banner that suggests it to be written like an advert. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is covered promotion and advertisement in this article. It needs fundamental rewrite up to meet encyclopedia. Katobara (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Volodymyr Levykin - This biography has notability and tone problems.
- Biography is mostly about company rather than person, and so largely misses biographical notability.
- The author says, on the talk page, 'Concerning to "content that is written like an advertisement" - please specify what sentences are written like an advertisement' - Author is asking reviewers to rework article into neutral form.
- Second sentence of lede reads: "He is a space and tech entrepreneur with a track record of launching and managing innovative businesses in the UK and Silicon Valley." That is resume language.
- Environmental and Social Impact section begins: "Volodymyr intends Skyrora to be ecologically-sustainable." That is about the company, not about the subject, and is advertising language.
- Article has been moved twice to draft space, by User:NenChemist and User:scope creep, and moved twice back to article space by author.
- Article has been reference-bombed with 28 references. Have not reviewed the references, and should not be expected to review the references. Biography does not speak for itself in explaining how subject satisfies general notability.
- Disagree respectfully with moving back to draft, because the article needs to be blown up and started over. If a neutral editor wants to start from the beginning, they don't need this.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I understand your sentiments regarding re-draftification. Even so, I see no obstacle to the thing being reworked in Draft: space. Either or the other works well. The article as it stands today is not appropriate. Your analysis is spot on. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete if not possible. I moved it to draft and expected it to be updated, but it more company references as opposed to BLP style references when it was done. If it can't redirect then delete. It is currently a diguised brochure article. I don't understand why. I think it is just a case the paid editing crowd attempting to get his article on, but don't have much to flesh it out. There is a article on the rocket company already, so it is a bit of lost cause. scope_creep^Talk 03:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I just moved it to draft per consensus here and per nominator - Timtrent. Topic is probably notable. More citations should be added, the tone and style could be fixed too. --FossLimi (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @FossLimi: I've reversed this move; unless you are closing the AfD (which I think would be inappropriate at this point) you should not move the article under discussion to draftspace. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:25, 24 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor

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

Unreferenced article about a specific award given by an organization that itself lacks a Wikipedia article. A quick scan of newspaper archives indicates that there are no substantial independent, third-party sources that ever discuss this Award for Best Actor. Don't call me shorely (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Awards. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the only source cited in this article, the awards for 2019 were the third awards, and the 2018 and 2017 awards are listed there too, which suggests that the 2016 award claimed here appears to be an error. Creating an article about this group's Best Actor award first when no article has been created about the group overall is not how topics should be handled on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability as per any policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:43, 23 February 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. There was a rough consensus that the subject does not meet WP:GNG in spite of the large amount of coverage available, much of which was identified as promotional. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lelo Sejean

AfDs for this article:

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

This is my 4th AFD nomination of this page going back 12 years. A vanity page. NOTHING at all notable that I can see. Only a low level amateur sportsman. Is the interview at http://www.elmensu.com/2022/01/20/sera-incluido-en-un-libro-inedito/ a reliable source? I don't read Spanish, but just seems like more ego boosting from a "novelty and peculiarity" than anything actually notable. The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 12 years ago, not my problem or responsibility, no depend on me, when the subject is important to PGY Football from 2020 and on, before 2020 is not my responsibility and 12 years ago much less my responsibilibity. Actualize you self with current time, my friend. I'm incharge of growth of PGY Football and PGY Edits. Where is your contribution to PGY Topic? User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 13:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lelo, as I assume from the level of detail int he article that you are either Lelo or have him sitting next to you telling you what to write, you need to read WP:COI to realise that NO ONE is in charge of any topic here. BTW, I've removed the "athletics" section, as the performances listed are not even at junior girls level. We only write articles about people who are actually notable, not those who believe that they are notable themselves. The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page is Important to PGY Football on year 2020 and forward, before this is NO my responsibility, and The subject has record of long presence in CONMEBOL as Oceania Footballer and is important to Football in PGY I'm in charge of PGY Football Portal and PGY Articles, and your contribution? Eike nde revikuape nde tembo. User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 14:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are TEMBO User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 14:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The-Pope is PUTO. Stayaway from Paraguay Articles you never edited Paraguay before. Puto. Inutil. Infeliz.User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 16:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charming. Add WP:NPA to your reading list. WP:AIV will be the next destination if you don't immediately retract all of your insults. The-Pope (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say again, the football player not soccer player, is longest of all non CONMEBOL football player in PGY out of all nationalities Football in Paraguay##Foreign football players and of all it's continent is the longest presence in CONMEBOL as footballer. Page is notable, again I say, of the year 2020 and on. DRAFT: was created in 2020 for it and Marcos Caballero and both accepted, important and known footballers of the PGY Football League, even if lower. It is commemorated. User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 15:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fashion, Lebanon, France, Australia, and Paraguay. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD where it was established that GNG had been met. Giant Snowman 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked how many are actually from reliable sources? WP:REFBOMB is a thing. Publicity hungry people feeding time-poor journalists willing to write about anything appears to be a valuable mix. Also, he's been through AFDs on the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias too. The-Pope (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've significantly cleaned up the article, removing puffery and unnecessary details. I don't have a stance whether the article should remain or not, though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone explain to me what this person's career is actually like? Apparently he's been in Paraguayan soccer for several years, except he has been frequently injured, only appeared in five games (none in the top division of the soccer leagues there) and never scored a goal, and has never even received a salary from any club in the country? In terms of involvement in the top level of sport, on a scale somewhere between Lionel Messi and an amateur who occasionally plays in a friendly game of soccer, where would this person appear? I don't literally need an answer to that question, but he seems to be closer to the latter, as attested by the statement, "While playing in Paraguay, Sejean never received a salary from any club, and was held to cover his economic necessities by sports sponsorships, confessing in 2020 that his sponsors provided food for him when he experienced hunger, and through streams of labour, as English teaching at schools in Asunción and Ciudad del Este, acting as an English Communicator for Asunción club Deportivo Recoleta by or during 2020, modelling, and working at a milk bar." An athlete who doesn't earn enough money (or have sufficient food provided by his team) to avoid hunger is probably very far from being a notable athlete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator, the article is about a person who does not meet the required notability. Most of the clubs he played for plays in the lower divisions and he has not played for any national team.--Sakiv (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content is notable for 1 - longest presence as non CONMEBOL foreigner in PGY of all of the nationalities a part from CONMEBOL and 2 - is longest presence of his continent in all of CONMEBOL. The content is notable of 2020 and on, before this is not my responsibility cause DRAFT: page was prepared for this in 2020 I am a good editor and most of my time is in expanding PGY Topics and Football in PGY or you want do it for me? Avisame amigo User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 00:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither points are covered by WP:NFOOTY; WP:GNG needs to be demonstrated (which maybe it is, maybe not?). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's been only 2 months since the last AFD, which had a consensus to keep. He hasn't become less notable in that time, and the article is better than it was then (as some of the rubbish content has been removed). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unfortunately). Seems to me that the subject easily fails NFOOTBALL or any NSPORT, and fails GNG on the basis of any sport. However, they do seem to get a lot of coverage, rightly or wrongly. The coverage has also been sustained and broad. And, when the subject appears in mainstream IRS like the SBS one has to think twice about the subject's notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for deletion. The article still needs some clean up, and some of the statements are exaggerated, but not enough for TNT, and AfD is not CLEANUP. So in my view the subject does pass general notability hence keep. (But no, I do not like the article as it stands.) Aoziwe (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe:, you should actually look at those sources, though. It's an impressive-looking list at first glance. None of the sources qualify as reliable. It's all smoke and mirrors. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Zepelin. You will see that I have got the broom to some of it too. As I stated above I do not like it. But unless someone can validly clean it all out, I feel I have to take what is left on face value. The SBS example is a case in point. If someone can with a high degree of confidence "prove" that this was lazy journalism by a normally reliable and independent source, then I think I could change my !vote relatively easily. Aoziwe (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rereapply the salt. GNG is "not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." even if there is a pass of GNG which I dispute. What sources are actually good for GNG? Let's have a look at what we have here. An unpaid football player without much of the playing bit. A less successful Carlos Kaiser? At least Kaiser was paid for not playing. Who did Sejean play for? Club Deportivo Sol del Este? The only one he had more than 1 game with? Look at the game photo. Top level there. Funny how he "began suffering from inflammation in the aquilian tendons due to excessive use" after managing to appear in one game. Brags about his athletics ability, competing as an "elite javelin thrower" [19], throwing a massive best of 36m. That's good enough to qualify for the Australian Championships. Well, for Under 14s that is. Source gets worse. "Sejean also hopes for a green and gold debut when Australia plays in the 2020 Copa America in June." I'm also not good enough to play professionally, perhaps I'll get to debut next time they play in Australia. An absolute junk source like so much of what is out there. Let's look at the SBS source mentioned above. "competes in elite athletics in Paraguay, with javelin and long jump." [20]. So another one with a total lack of any fact checking, so not a reliable source. Just a throwaway feel good piece based entirely on what he is saying. How about the ones Joseph linked in the last afd. The Geelong piece is a puff piece look what this local is doing from the same terrible Geelong Indy rag as above. The other two are promo pieces from a site showing no sign of being an independent reliable source. Who are they, who wrote these pieces? Are there any good sources? What sources are out there. Lots of barely watched videos of him training or of him failing to break world records. Lots of non-reliable sources based on things he has said. This is just a self-promoter with no significant achievements who occasionally gets lazy journos to reproduce his claims unchecked. How about the gallery of him standing alone in empty fields, posing outside closed stadiums? Makes him look even less noteworthy. Why so many SPAs on commons dedicated to posting pictures of him training alone. Salt again due to the long history of socks, ownership and attacks and the bad faithed gaming of the system by restarting the page at a different title to avoid salt. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme As I said above, I do not like it either, but I do not think it can be discounted. I have done a bit of pruning of content (unreliable primary IMO) based on interviews, but there is still more than would leave me feeling comfortable changing at this point. Aoziwe (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS For us to simply dismiss what would normally be regarded as a very reliable and independent source such as the SBS as lazy journalism without some independent evidence to that effect, I fear would make us no better than the delete opinion needs to assert about the standing of this article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about competing at an "elite level" of athletics in javelin and long jump, but his bests of 36m and 4.93m are not at all notable distances. 13 year old girls do better in my state, let alone the whole country. To me that's evidence that it's a puff piece. I reached out to the journalist on twitter to ask, but he didn't reply after I told him of my concerns. The-Pope (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am missing something but I cannot see the distances in the SBS article? I can find the distances in older sources, but the subject could have improved since then. I just think we cannot be sloppy even if believe the article is grossly sloppy with its facts. Aoziwe (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Sejean, His 100m time would beat all Australian 9yo girls. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is only so much benefit of the doubt you can give someone. He hasn't updated his records on his YouTube page though. And, IMO, when you have documented evidence of the poor results (links to the official results were in the article), and a passing mention in a questionable article with no specific details or references for "elite" performance, that sort of goes precisely opposite to the intention of WP:GNG. The-Pope (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the arguments in the above delete votes. This is an impressive list of unreliable sources, and it took a lot of time to build, so I suspect someone is paying someone to make this subject look as notable as possible, but I agree with the editors above - just doesn't meet WP:GNG. Fred Zepelin (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His acting and modelling career is even more farcical. Is there any reliable source connecting him with this 'Elijah Sejean' bloke? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None at all that I can find, so I have removed it. Aoziwe (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe, @Spiderone: Seems like it is the same dude, per here. "Sí, no se los contamos de entrada para no impresionarlos (?), pero Lelo Sejean es, antes que nada, un artista. Y como tal, tiene un nombre artístico: Elijah Sejean." But I still don't think the article is notable enough to stay. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BrazilianDude70 Sorry but that article is useless. It is quoting from here in Wikipedia, "Para empezar a desarrollar su camino, tenemos que tener en cuenta su Wikipedia." Aoziwe (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it isn't the only one that's sourced to Wikipedia either! Sejean and/or his agent have been working overtime on this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG - looking through the sources, none of them meet the requirements. BilledMammal (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With Calm, and as Creator of Page in 2020, and read the claim for Deletion, I sympathize in part, cause when I create New Pages of PGY Footballers or Footballers in PGY, the first information I search of a footballer is - Transfermarket - FBRef - Football Data Base - Soccerway - Cero a Cero, and how can you have Profile of Transfmarkt, FBRef, Football Data Base, if you play in the PGY Asenscion Leagues? But, is why, because of unsure, I created DRAFT Pages for Elie Charbel Lelo Sejean and Marcos Caballero on 2020, and on 2020 and Forward was both very Important to PGY Football, and both Pages approved and stay with reason and motive of Notability. Marcos Caballero was deleted in past but I recreated and more convincingly. In response, I say you, I dedicate my time to expand the PGY Football topics and PGY topics in all areas, and see all my edits and you say me good edits. In current page, the item has all important information removed by user Nehme1499 (talk · contribs), and now is unnotable. But I repeat is important to PGY Football as Long Foreign Footballer in Continent and is important to Ciudad del Este just on the grounds that Marcos Caballero is important and a figure to Sportivo Ameliano and the PGY Ascension Leagues. And is Football and not Soccer, and is Elie Charbel Lelo Sejean and not Lelo Sejean. Check with the Asociación Paraguaya de Fútbol entonces Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk · contribs) 18:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much like the article and its REFBOMB list itself, this is a lot of text that does nothing to establish notability. I'd encourage whoever reviews this discussion to notice that the references are all fluff. The Keep votes have ignored this -- the Delete votes have pointed it out. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat you that I sympathize and I understand you. Thank you Fred Zepelin (talk · contribs), for your seriousness on this theme and for no insulting my edits cause I am apenas using google translate and copying other english wording, now is in the hands of the reviewer.Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk · contribs) 02:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The-Pope that you are either Lelo or have him sitting next to you telling you what to write. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for a weak delete, but I'm not so sure of it. Definitely WP:REFBOMB by an user who does not respect WP:NPA at all. The evidence for my last claim is right here above my message, when he goes by calling someone a "motherf*cker" (hdp is hijo de puta, a clear Spanish swear)... Back to the nomination, I would ask someone to do a major cleanup on the article, because there aren't many WP:RS over the subject, and most of the article's content seem like a self-promotion for a rarely notable player in a more expansive context. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk · contribs)'s insults towards The-Pope in this discussion page, along with his disruptive editing on the article in question warrant a block imo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nehme1499 - I would have to agree. We all have disagreements with each other at AfD over things but there's a line and some of these comments have definitely crossed it. Taken them to WP:ANI. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: I agree that this is refbombing to gull careless voters into thinking this meets the GNG, that the sources don't actually provide significant coverage to this otherwise non-notable subject beyond routine sports coverage, and that the mistakes and knee-jerk follow-the-leader votes in the prior AfDs don't bind our hands now. Ravenswing 20:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This article is entirely a vanity piece. It's not so much a case of the references failing to demonstrate notability... they clearly demonstrate non-notability. This elite javelin thrower has a video on his youtube channel of him throwing near his personal best in 2015 at 28 m. World record is 98.48 m. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. My brother's best javelin throw (which was good enough for 3rd place in our state's high school championship in 1979) was over 50 meters. Ravenswing 07:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was fooled in the previous discussion and voted keep hastily without consideration for COI and without fully considering whether the sources are reliable or not. It's quite clear that Sejean has been campaigning for many, many years to get a Wikipedia article and that most of the references are completely worthless. Wikipedia should remain firm against UPE/COI articles like this and I strongly agree with the deletion arguments raised here. Sejean has received significant coverage, correct, but GNG also requires the coverage to be independent of the subject which I strongly believe to be untrue here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This page has been deleted three times before. Enough is enough! Fails WP:NFOOTBALL resoundingly. Tries to squeak in under WP:GNG because he's an Australian in a South American country. Nope.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the player list for the club he played for: Club Deportivo Sol del Este. He’s the only player? And the club stopped because of financial difficulties? Some of the information presented stretches credulity. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:35, 28 February 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Park (Hong Kong)

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

As a result of 2 recent AfD's, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cascades, Hong Kong and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easeful Court, this similar article was redirected, an editor objected and so here we are. All the coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Six tower blocks comprising 1,456 units, so a major development. Likely to have received coverage in the 1990s when it was constructed that is no longer or never was available online. NemesisAT (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nomination. There are over 50 public housing estates in Hong Kong with their standalone articles, most of which are converted from redirect. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something's not right here. "Keep per nomination"? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am the editor who objected to the mass blanking/ redirecting of 21 articles by the nominator without discussion, using an AfD outcome for not systematically comparable estates as a precedent. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Mass housing estates articles blanking/ redirecting for details. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 林可為 (2008-07-05). "浩景臺葵涌半山景開揚夾屋重推勝在夠廉" [Highland Park: Kwai Chung open mid-mountain view. The heavy push for sandwich-class housing developments. It wins at being sufficiently inexpensive.]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2008-07-08. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The Grand View Terrace, which consists of 6 buildings, is located on the mid-levels of Kwai Chung. Whether it is in Kwai Chung, West Kowloon, or in the area around Hong Kong Island, the majestic view of the Grand View Terrace can be seen. As a matter of fact, due to its location at a high altitude, the vast majority of units in Grand View Terrace have unobstructed views of Kwai Chung, West Kowloon, Victoria Harbour, and the area from Hong Kong Island Ring to Western Ring. The night scene after the lanterns are on should be quite charming. There are also green minibuses in the area connecting to Lai King MTR Station, so external traffic is not too far off. Among the 438 stub units sold by the Housing Society this time, Ho King Terrace accounts for the largest proportion."
2. Ko, Kenneth (1997-10-01). "HKHS releases 2,168 sandwich-class units". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 265453378. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
  The article notes: "The Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS) is releasing 2,168 flats in two sandwich-class housing developments for middle-income families at discounted prices of $3,600 to $3,800 per square foot. On offer are 712 units at Cascades in Ho Man Tin and 1,456 units at Highland Park in Kwai Chung. ... Highland Park's units spread in six blocks on a hill at Lai Kong Street. Units measure 593 to 820 sq ft and prices range between $1.74 million and $3.36 million - averaging $3,600 per sq ft. ... Some analysts said the selling prices of Cascades and Highland Park were too low from a taxpayer's point of view and they questioned whether the Government was over-subsidising. Tony Lui, manager of Ricacorp Properties' Mei Foo district, said the Highland Park site was on a hill with views of Tsuen Wan and Hong Kong Island. If the site was offered for sale for private development, the finished units easily could sell at more than $10,000 per sq ft, he said."
3. Ko, Kenneth (1997-10-08). "Is the middle class being made too comfortable?". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 1801970043. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
  The article notes: "The question of taxpayers over-subsidising these families was raised again during the launch of two new sandwich-class housing projects - the 712-unit Cascades in Ho Man Tin and the 1,465-unit Highland Park in Kwai Chung. The HKHS said the selling price for Cascades averaged $3,800 per square foot while that for Highland Park was $3,600 per sq ft. The prices represent a 40 per cent discount on full-market prices, as estimated by HKHS. Based on this discount ratio, full-market prices estimated by the HKHS would be about $6,300 per sq ft for Cascades and $6,000 per sq ft for Highland Park. ...The units in Highland Park, located on a hill near the Lai King MTR station, command good and open views. Are their prices too low? ... The most expensive units available in the projects are those in Charming Garden phase two, at Mongkok, selling for an average of $3,325 per sq ft, which is only several hundred dollars cheaper than Cascades and Highland Park. ... This may not allay criticism as analysts reckoned that the discount pricing of Cascades and Highland Park would enable the buyers to take significant capital gains on re-sale of the units on the open market after the five-year restriction. ... Units in Cascades measure 539-962 sq ft. Those in Highland Park are 593-820 sq ft. ... The unit prices of Cascades range from $1.87 million to $3.65 million. Those of Highland Park vary between 1.74 million and $3.36 million. ... Families that could afford the $3.65 million and $3.36 million prices for the most expensive units in Cascades and Highland Park were even more financially capable of purchasing smaller units in the open market, analysts said."
4. Ng, Kang-Chung (1999-09-25). "Excuse not watertight". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 265546055. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
  The article notes: "A group of Kwai Chung flat-owners have been told the good location of their homes is part of the reason water seeps in during typhoons. Residents in Highland Park complained about serious water leakage through the walls during typhoons Sam and York. ... The sandwich class housing project is on a hillside, with unblocked views of the west of Victoria Harbour."
5. "【地產追擊】夾屋叫價癲過私樓！八成按揭盤絕迹" [[Real Estate Pursuit] The asking prices of sandwich class flats exceed those of private buildings! 80% of the mortgage market disappeared]. Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2018-07-20. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
  The article notes: "Among the 10 sandwich houses in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories, the most active one is Ho King Terrace. Because it is located in the mid-levels of Kwai Chung, the property price lags behind the market, attracting buyers to enter the market. ... Take Ho King Terrace, Kwai Chung, which was the most active in the first half of the year and recorded 15 sales and purchase registrations, as an example. Compared with the total number of 1,456 units in the housing estate, the circulation rate of the housing estate in the first half of the year was only 1%."
6. "浩景臺開拍價780萬" [Highland Park opens auction price of 7.8 million]. Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2022-02-01. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Highland Park is a "sandwich class project" housing estate developed by the Hong Kong Housing Society. It is located at No. 11 Lai Kong Street, Kwai Chung, which is the top of Lai King Hill. There are 1,456 units in total, ranging from 593 to 820 square feet. Views of Victoria Harbour, Kowloon Peninsula and Tsing Yi Island, and some of the high-rise units on the northeast side of Blocks 3 and 4 can overlook Shatin, Tolo Harbour and Pat Sin Leng."
7. Less significant coverage and passing mentions:
  1. Moy, Patsy (2000-08-07). "Flat-sale delays to cost Housing Society $26m". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 265583576. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
    The article provides two sentences of coverage about Highland Park. The article notes: "The delayed sales of a further 1,053 flats at Highland Park, Kwai Chung, and the Cascades, Ho Man Tin - both completed last year - will cost the society an estimated $18 million. Highland Park and Cascades sold 820 and 295 flats respectively before the freeze, but all flats at Serenity Place are empty."
  2. Wong, Billy Wai-Yuk (1998-08-08). "New mortgage plan for sandwich class". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 265430527. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about Highland Park. The article notes: "The seven estates affected are Radiant Towers and The Pinnacle in Tseung Kwan O, Marina Habitat in Ap Lei Chau, Highland Park and Hibiscus Park in Kwai Chung, Sunshine Grove in Sha Tin and Cascades in Ho Man Tin."
  3. Wong, Billy Wai-Yuk (1998-03-21). "Interest breaks on offer for sandwich class". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 265465782. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
    The article p;rovides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The eight estates involved are Ma On Shan's Park Belvedere, Tseung Kwan O's Radiant Towers and The Pinnacle, Marina Habitat in Ap Lei Chau, Kwai Chung's Highland Park and Hibiscus Park, Sunshine Grove in Sha Tin and Ho Man Tin's Cascades."
  4. Leo, Kym (2001-08-12). "Times have changed for exclusive location; Agents say the market has not been kind to the high end of Lai King". Sunday Morning Post. p. 40. ProQuest 2420426323. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject: "Another major project at Wah King Hill is Highland Park, developed by the Hong Kong Housing Society under the "sandwich-class" housing scheme. The merits of the scheme and whether the government should give heavy discounts to homebuyers were widely debated about five years ago. "Sandwich class" refers to buyers unable to afford a private flat but over-qualified for a Home Ownership Scheme flat."
  5. Moy, Patsy (2000-11-01). "Estate agents fear sale of sandwich-class flats". Sunday Morning Post. ProQuest 265625695. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
    The article notes: "The three projects - Cascades in Ho Man Tin, Highland Park in Kwai Chung and Marina Habitat in Ap Lei Chau - with flats ranging from 540 to 965 square feet - will sell for between $1.5 million and $2 million, about 20 per cent below market price. The apartments were left unsold in the last sale two years ago."
  6. Leung, Peggy (2010-04-08). "Sale of the last of Housing Society flats draws 30,000 home seekers". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 266732326. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
    The article notes: "The society is selling 181 flats at The Pinnacle in Tseung Kwan O, 161 at Highland Park in Kwai Chung and 32 at The Cascades in Ho Man Tin. .... The flats at Highland Park range in size from 727 sq ft to 816 sq ft and cost around HK$3,100 per sq ft."
  7. Wong, Billy Wai-Yuk (1999-03-10). "Blocked views to endanger flat sales". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 265579366. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
    The article notes: "Families who bought into a subsidised housing scheme are threatening to default after they discovered their views will be blocked by government staff quarters. Highland Park in Kwai Chung offered 1,400 flats for sale in December 1997 through the Housing Society. Only 60 per cent have been bought. ... The quarters will be 50 metres from Highland Park at the closest and 200 metres at the most distant."
  8. Wong, Billy Wai-Yuk (1998-06-25). "Axe left hanging over sandwich flat scheme". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 265479652. Retrieved 2022-02-21.
    The article notes: "The society had so far launched nine projects, involving 8,100 flats, under the scheme. Its popularity dropped in two recent projects - Ho Man Tin's Cascades and Kwai Chung's Highland Park - when private market prices slumped to a comparable level."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Highland Park (traditional Chinese: 浩景臺; simplified Chinese: 浩景台) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that it is a keep but I would feel happier if the article was improved to the point that it is no longer be a stub article. Gusfriend (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the additional sources provided above show any real significant coverage. Some mentions, some talking about routine matters like rents. Nothing significant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not all of Cunard's sources are significant coverage, I think that the analysis of the economic impact of Highland Park in these sources [21] [22] [23] is enough to keep the article per WP:NBUILDING. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:29, 28 February 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 12:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AtYourGate

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

trivial company, minor pr-based articles in local newspapers (and on Fox). For what it's worth, I do not see how it can be called a robot: it doesn't guide itself--it follows a human, just carrying the food DGG ( talk ) 11:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 11:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AtYourGate. This startup company does not satisfy general notability or corporate notability. An article should speak for itself, and this article only says that the company exists. We knew that.
- Article has been moved to draft space twice, by User:Onel5969 and User:DGG, and moved back to article space both times by originator. The second move back to article space had the silly edit summary: "Article meets WP:NCORP and is still in active development." The place for a page that is in active development is draft space.
- The references are interviews about the service at four airports in the United States. They demonstrate that the company provides service at various airports in the United States, but none of them are independent.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.sandiegouniontribune.com	Interview with company about service in San Diego	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	www.seattletimes.com	Interview with company about service in Seattle	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	www.foxnews.com	Interview about service at Philadelphia airport	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	startribune.com	Interview about service at Minneapolis airport	No	Yes	Yes	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and due to editor's behavior, salt. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No historical value. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 23:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Cheers, The man from Gianyar (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can’t find any relevant and independent press coverage to back up the notability of this company, a standard search brings up multiple pages of company owned links, like social media, their own website etc. GeekBurst (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a snow close at this point. No need to salt as I am the editor in question, with a talk page which has been open to your concerns all along if you have them. Retswerb (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Seems to have been created purely to promote the company. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Interviews are not only PRIMARY sources but also not Independent Content. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above delete voters. Misasory (talk) 21:18, 26 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DXDT Racing

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

~~Motor racing team doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG- coverage is either WP:ROUTINE or does not discuss the team in depth. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to recent improvements in the article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment/Neutral Delete~~ - A 5-minute Googling got me this article from RACER that I believe is significant enough to contribute to GNG, however everything else is either a press release or strictly ROUTINE in it's coverage. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but I'm not ready to !vote for deletion at this time. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 23:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GhostOfDanGurney I am trying to understand how is this even remotely close to a WP:GNG worthy source. A passing mention of DXDT + quote farm + quote farm + 2 sentences about Crowdstrike (unrelated to the AfD) + another quote farm + 1 sentence about DXDT + quote farm + quote farm + a sentence about Ryan Dalziel + quote farm. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your standards are higher than mine? Or more likely, mine are lower for non-BLP subjects. Although thin, there is enough secondary context about the subject to contribute to a short stub article should another worthy source be brought up. As it stands, nothing else appears to exist at this time hence why I'm likely not !voting to keep this. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With nothing else available, I have edited my !vote from neutral -> delete. It is indeed WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. I was unable to find anything resembling significant coverage and I agree with the nom that the above doesn't constitute significant coverage. A7V2 (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Lacking coverage and it is an orphan article.Gusfriend (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your constructive criticism and discussion of this page. Because this particular form of racing does not receive large amounts of exposure sometimes the only media covering this particular series are the ones I have already cited, as I know I cannot link to DXDT or Crowdstrike's own press releases. That is why Wikipedia has been incredibly helpful in increasing the footprint for this area of the sport and linking all the coverage in one place. With your helpful feedback, I have begun to add from additional sources including Honda, Mercedes Benz, Speedsport News, and Speedway Digest, as well as linking to other Wikipedia pages that include the team this page is about. I will continue to gather additional sources to meet your guidelines. Thanks again! Racerchick18 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in the process of linking DXDT Racing to all of the articles they were previously mentioned in. There were many, so it is taking some time while I continue to update the page. Thank you for your patience! Racerchick18 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has undergone a significant expansion since the last delete !vote, which requires reanalysis of the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I have struck my delete !vote in light of the expansion of the article; although WP:NMOTORSPORT does not cover race teams at present, the team's results in GT World Challenge Americas indicates a good future WP:POTENTIAL for passing GNG. At the moment, it does not, with still only RACER providing anything more than WP:ROUTINE coverage that isn't an official release (with even RACER being debatable, as seen above). Draftifying in my opinion is the correct solution here, allowing the creator to continue working on the article until a second piece of SIGCOV is found. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ With the improvements in the page I have changed from delete to ~~neutral~~ and hope that the improvements continue. Gusfriend (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (previously delete then neutral) - As the page has continued to improve I believe that it has reached the point that it satisfies the requirements to being kept.Gusfriend (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my delete above. Looking through the sourcing in the article as of now there still isn't much in the way of SIGNIFICANT coverage that is actually about the team (rather than the drivers, sponsors, etc), so I am not switiching to keep, just withdrawing my !vote (let's call it neutral). A7V2 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my !vote to send to draft in light of the nominator's withdrawal. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 09:04, 22 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Billiris

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

Very unlikely to be notable per WP:BIO; a quick Google search didn't turn up much; and the subject of this article requested that his article be deleted per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE in the IRC help channel. Java Hurricane 09:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anywhere near sufficient IRS to support GNG. Bios at EXPN and Rollerblading also seem to have disappeared or been moved. Aoziwe (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, unable to verify achievements. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any IRSs. Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:18, 22 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Putsch-Grassi

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

Although she is an accomplish ceramicist, I cannot find any reliable independent sources to cite the information stated in the article. No evidence of participating in major exhibitions or in any collections. I think this may be WP:TOOSOON or non-notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I will be adding additional sources, citations, memberships etc.Radulf (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Putsch -Grassi lists some publications at https://www.putsch-grassi.it/awards-and-publications/. Unfortunately, they don't link to the articles. I did find what I think is the article in CERAMICS MONTHLY From idea to finished form, in Ceramics Monthly, Sept. 2015, Vol. 63, Issue 7 but that's BY her, not ABOUT her. Vexations (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting point. I agree sources generated by the person alone are not sufficent. But let's say if an artist or author says something in an interview or an autobiography - couldn't this contain interesting information and thus be a relevant source? Provided the overall number of "objective" sources is satisfactory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radulf (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A limited number of primary sources (including interviews) is allowed, but they should be a minor component of the overall reliable sources. Also, if you have access to the book sources referenced in the article, it would go a long ways towards proving notability if you could provide inline citations to specific page numbers. Curiocurio (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK,I will provide additional material in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radulf (talk • contribs) 15:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source in Gscholar found in Turkish. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References have been added, proofs of international exhibitions, etc. Further references and inline citations are in preparation.Radulf (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article remains largely unsourced for year and place of birth, education, technique, and some awards. Additionally the reference to Académie Internationale de la Céramique and her membership is not RS. She is a member of the association and essentially create that page. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order to provide the needed information I would like to understand what type of information we need to attach. Is an official birth document required for date and place of birth? Or is a magazine, book, other document stating this information sufficient? Same for the College which unfortunately does not release a browsable documentation on their alumni site, what document is needed in this case? In 2021 a guide was published by the newspaper La Repubblica in which they mention the German origin and studies at Goldsmith College, could it be sufficient? About the Académie Internationale de la Céramique, what do you mean by "RS"? Thank you. MrCarloGrassi (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrCarloGrassi, Usually when an artist's work is in a notable collection, the institution lists the artists nationality and year of birth. I am not finding Putsch-Grassi listed in any online collections/museums. If there is a book or magazine listing this information, you should add an inline citation to the article. RS means "reliable source". You can read the article Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I have updated the article to show precisely what needs to have a citation (or be removed). Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, according to this CV works by Putsch-Grassi are held in the collections of Mark Rothko Art Centre, National Museum of Slovenia, and Riga Porcelain Museum (amongst others), but have been unable to confirm, if any editor can provide appropriate references she would then meet WP:NARTIST. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added official certification from the National Museum of Slovenia, i hope this material is allowed as only the official document is available and no statement can be found on the museum website. As for the Riga Porcelain Museum, she donated the work of this exhibition to the permanent collection, but official proof is not available at the moment. MrCarloGrassi (talk) 21:46, 01 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article includes references that evidence awards and exhibits. I found: "A way with clay; Some of the best potters in the world will be in Wales this weekend for the biennial International Ceramics Festival. Karen Price takes a look at the programme." Western Mail [Cardiff, Wales], 1 July 2011, p. 10." in which she is listed as an exhibitor. This Italian journal in which she was the artist of the month. Another group exhibit (in Milan). An invitation exhibit in Rome. A group exhibit in Puglia (famed for its ceramics). She's clearly part of the art ceramics scene in Italy and I think it passes NARTIST. Lamona (talk) 18:21, 23 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite Day

AfDs for this article:

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

This 17-year-old article has very little content. It consists of one uncited paragraph and one cite-supported sentence. Notability not established. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I feel like there should be sourcing for why this persisted as a game, or what it teaches, but I'm unable to find anything in the way of RS coverage. Just teachign materials. Star Mississippi 02:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the concept is certainly notable, the fact is that the article has been around since 2005 and has remained more or less a stub since. For a topic not time-bounded and otherwise well-known, the fact that editors have struggled to find WP:RS indicates to me that this topic doesn't have enough substance to merit being on Wikipedia. I've looked through a couple past revisions of the page, and there doesn't seem to be much more than a couple paragraphs of description and the occasional extra section like appearances in popular media. --Aismallard (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing WP:GNG. Should probably then be made into a disambiguation page or the film article be moved there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I'm surprised this has been kept in previous AfD... Spf121188 (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, let's try a bit of WP:BEFORE, eh? Search, don't base things on the article.
Keep The biggest problem with sourcing this is all the hits that get in the way that aren't quite this. But an article can easily be built around all that.
- News sources [24], [25],[26]
- Article on the topic: [27]
- (source in article), [28],
- Kids books about the idea [29]
- Passing references which assume the idea is known to most readers [30].

Sorry, I've got to get back to work, but folks it's clearly notable. Not a great article for sure. And we could have a whole article (or section) on "Opposite day in popular culture" given all the TV shows, comics and books that have an issue or episode named after this... Hobit (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, I actually think renaming the article Opposite day in popular culture and using sources like the ones you've noted would be a good alternative to deletion. Spf121188 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is still not much that doesn't show that this article is better off in Wiktionary than Wikipedia. The article in Birmingham Mail just cites vague rumors about its origins. Unless a clear history of the concept can be found, it doesn't require a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hobit ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 23:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Concurring with Hobit. Subject is notable, despite the article being short. Certainly needs some cleanup to provide additional RS, however, arguments for deletion appear to focus too centrally on a WP:LONGTIME fallacy. Article contents do not dictate notability, the subject does, for which GNG is met... at least to my eye. Bgv. (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My main issue with the sources posted is that they fail reliability and independence standards. The 3 news sources are based upon the article from the National Today website, which makes dubious claims that I couldn't verify (e.g. Eisenhower declared August 17th opposite day. That'd be a really cool origin story if there were a single reliable independent source about it). Doing my own WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing the holiday in any detail other than the obvious "here's some ideas of what to do on opposite day." While it's a commonly used phrase, that doesn't justify a Wikipedia article per WP:NOTDICT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:04, 28 February 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. With the varying opinions on how to handle these pages—from deleting them all, keeping them all, keep the ones a certain editor is working on, keep the ones that are maintained, merge them all into the related outline pages, etc.—we've got ourselves an unmanageable WP:TRAINWRECK. Editors may want to consider other options in spirit of WP:ATD; perhaps smaller bundled or individual nominations where necessary. These indices are not absent of issues as pointed out in the discussion, but this mass nomination can not adequately address them. ✗plicit 13:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Abkhazia-related articles

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

173 other pages

A recent series of AfDs, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Index_of_Myanmar-related_articles_(2nd_nomination), reached agreement to delete this redundant and unmaintainable system of index articles about countries and territories. The most commonly cited concerns are that navigation is already provided by navboxes, categories, and lists with narrower scope, including outline articles like Outline of Turkmenistan; and that most countries and territories have a large number of associated articles — for example, even the Vatican City has about 2,000 articles indexed by its associated WikiProject. Most of these are exactly like the previously nominated lists, but any exceptional cases should be noted if you find one. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The precedent is set that these types of articles are redundant in Wikipedia, and many have already been removed for that reason. Ajf773 (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Africa, Algeria, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Somalia, Tunisia, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Asia, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Singapore, Taiwan, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Middle East, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Europe, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia (country), Germany, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Oceania, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Caribbean, South America, Argentina, Barbados, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Poor maintenance and redundancy is not a good look. Some of them have had completely empty sections for over a decade now. As for extraordinary cases, I went through them and I've written down what can be salvaged.

Specific comments. 29 pages

General comments:

A lot of these articles have lists, which can be split to a list of lists or merged with the respective outline. Merge any external links like "Articles with (country name) in title" or "Atlas of (country name)"(Commons link) etc to outlines or the country articles where appropriate. I also think that they could be redirected to the respective outlines, if there are no issues with that. Some have redlinks which I guess can be added to the lists of requested articles, if nonexistent. A few have external links to Wikipedias in the language(s) of the countries, would there be any use in moving that to the respective outline pages? A few have sidebars, with the Soviet Union one having all the related sidebars I assume , would there be any use in moving something like that to the outline pages? Depending on this nomination's results, a cleanup of Lists of country-related topics will be needed, as well as navboxes that link to these indices. Dege31 (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many of these indexes should probably go. However, the usual arguments for deletion don't apply to all of them. Previous indexes got deleted because their scope was unmaintainably wide (this is not the case for the smaller countries), because they didn't get updated (some of the lists here may be better looked after), because they were redundant to wikiproject listings (quite a few of the ones here don't have associated wikiprojects). Some of the articles here are not alphabetical indexes at all, but structured lists that function like outlines (Dege31 seems to have identified those). Some indexes are unexpectedly popular (the Vatican one has been receiving hundreds of daily views since late last year [31]). – Uanfala (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Vatican City-related articles not only receives hundreds of views a day, yes, for years, but often thousands. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request to keep the Index of Singapore-related articles. This index is maintained by me for the last 3 years and is updated weekly, except for when I was truly busy in real life and was away for the computer for a week or two. I don't see me stopping the regular updates in the near future given that it requires less than an hour per week to do so. Nonetheless I have begun to work a tool to better involve other editors in the updating of the index (see below).

The reason for keeping the list up to date are primarily to know what articles related to Singapore have been written and also to combat vandalism, and to a smaller extent, advise or step in when we see mass edits that go into contrary to the current standards/guidelines/standardisation across a topic. Vandalism watch is done primarily through the Recent Changes special page.

The criteria for inclusion is a curated list of Singapore subcategories. The curated list was a result of an one-time exercise that I did to manually expand all subcategories of Singapore in the category page (although it is manual, I made use of jQuery and css classes to toggle open all sub-categories in batches which reduced the time spent). The curated list is actively being updated as well. I wrote a helper script (https://github.com/robertsky/wikisglinks) to parse through the curated categories list for the pages that are categorised in them and output them in the format and markup you see for the index. The updates can be considered as semi-automatic updates as I make use of git diff to verify the potential changes, as sometimes some articles may be inadvertently removed or included due to miscategorisations or category renames. It also requires manual intervention when there are updates to the header and footer content outside the article list by other editors on Wikipedia or when there's a change in APIs that affects the script.

Looking at broad numbers, there are 12,000+ links currently on the index while there are 11,000+ being assessed for WikiProject Singapore. The higher number may be due to inclusion of tangentially related articles, like one-time ambassadors to Singapore, expatriates/international companies with regional HQs in Singapore, etc. , which may not be assessed for WikiProject Singapore due to the relatively light content related to Singapore on the article， or simply missed out in their assessments. Nonetheless, the updated Index has been serving its intended uses well.

I did consider using WikiProject Singapore article assessment as an alternative to updating the index. However, as I had noted in a discussion at Wikiproject Singapore when I sought to update the index, the number of articles retrieved through categories was 4,000+ more than the number listed in the Article Assessment.

I had been considering expanding the helper script into a frontend tool to allow other editors make use of the script for other indexes without diving into command line, or requiring manual seeding of categories as I did or minimal manual interventions, and am laying the foundations to start the work on. I don't intend for the script to turn into a bot, thus will definitely require editors to consciously accept the changes (and the usual responsibilities of publishing an edit) before the changes go live on the index.

If some, if not all, of the indexes can be salvaged and maintained with the script/tool, editors are certainly welcome to do so.

Outline of Singapore had been cleaned up accordingly as well in 2021, thus making the intents of the index and outline articles distinct from each other. – robertsky (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no problem as long as these are maintained, since they do have daily visitors. It would be helpful if the process was (semi-)automatic, because most of them cover less than 5 % of articles that are in relevant WikiProjects. Dege31 (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to move any of these lists that are in fact maintained to Wikiproject space. This is good work and would be similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (0–9) etc., which are kept up to date by a bot. Reywas92^Talk 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would projectspace be a better location? If a list is of a manageable size and it's being actively maintained up to date, then it would be of benefit to readers. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified of this discussion by a post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand, but there is no article on the list as far as I can see which is particularly relevant to NZ. Did someone miss adding List of New Zealand–related topics?-gadfium 19:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because Index of Cook Islands–related articles is up for deletion? – Uanfala (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. It doesn't look like any of the articles listed for deletion apart from the Abkhazia one have been tagged. – Uanfala (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many to tag by hand, so I've filed an WP:AWBREQ to address that. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge/move all Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Sri Lanka–related articles. Any that are actually maintained or more comprehensive may be better off in relevant wikiprojects. Any that are organized by topic should be combined with the relevant outline, as listed above. Delete the rest because just an unmaintained alphabetical list of links doesn't really serve a navigational purpose when we have a search bar, categories, and outlines. Reywas92^Talk 22:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any currently maintained, such as the Singapore one. Depending on how that script mentioned there turns out, I'm neutral on all other ones. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I have been personally working on Index of Armenia-related articles almost daily/ weekly for over 2 years (as seen in the edit history). I have been diligently trying to improve it since January 2020. I think any country index being properly maintained/updated shouldn't be discredited and cast off so hastily. Rather, they should be given the chance to develop further. Honestly speaking, it was this index article itself which sparked my joy of editing on Wikipedia, and helped me to discover articles/topics I never knew existed related to Armenia. The past 2 years it has been a joy to try and improve/update it, and I plan on continuing such contributions given the opportunity. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These kind of lists add nothing to Wikipedia, and navboxes and categories' systems already offer this kind of view. The indices with any kind of salvageable contents should merge that contents into their own outlines and make the index a redirect. I find the case of Singapore index not an exception but something that is currently overlapping the category system without any added-value at all, therefore it should be deleted. --Onwa (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Onwa, as outlined in my comment, the index is used for countering vandalism and monitoring for mass edits. Can articles in multiple categories be monitored with a single watchlist/recent changes watchlist? – robertsky (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think ns-0 space pages should be used to actual articles, not to coordinate or perform maintenance tasks. If that kind of page is needed in order to monitor changes, then move the pages to (or create this kind of "watchlist pages" within) Project namespace. --Onwa (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither of these are encyclopedic purposes – maintained lists should be moved to wikiproject space if the purpose is monitoring the articles. Reywas92^Talk 16:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, esp. currently maintained pages, i.e., much work and full maintenance has been done on Index of Vatican City–related articles, a major topic-related page sometimes viewed by thousands of readers a day. Please remove that one from this maybe unprecedented mass-deletion purge, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of all indexes. Keep well-developed or maintained lists. Redirect the unmaintained lists to their corresponding articles per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. It is useful to preserve the content and history because the items in this list can give editors ideas about how they can create, expand, and improve articles, outlines, and other lists. It will allow editors in the future to reuse the content to recreate the indexes if they would like to maintain them.

For any indexes that are well-developed or where editors are currently maintaining them, I support retention. Keep Index of Armenia-related articles, Index of Singapore-related articles, and Index of Vatican City–related articles as they are maintained.

Below I have proposed where the pages are redirected to as an alternative to deletion. If there are better pages to redirect to (such as outlines or other lists), then I support that instead.

Proposed redirects for 174 index pages

Redirect Index of Abkhazia-related articles to Abkhazia
Redirect Index of Akrotiri and Dhekelia–related articles to Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Redirect Index of Åland Islands–related articles to Åland Islands
Redirect Index of Algeria-related articles to Algeria
Redirect Index of American Samoa–related articles to American Samoa
Redirect Index of Andorra-related articles to Andorra
Redirect Index of Angola-related articles to Angola
Redirect Index of Anguilla-related articles to Anguilla
Redirect Index of Antigua and Barbuda–related articles to Antigua and Barbuda
Redirect Index of Argentina-related articles to Argentina
Redirect Index of Armenia-related articles to Armenia
Redirect Index of Artsakh-related articles to Artsakh
Redirect Index of Aruba-related articles to Aruba
Redirect Index of Ascension Island–related articles to Ascension Island
Redirect Index of Australia-related articles to Australia
Redirect Index of Austria-related articles to Austria
Redirect Index of Azerbaijan-related articles to Azerbaijan
Redirect Index of the Bahamas–related articles to the Bahamas
Redirect Index of Barbados-related articles to Barbados
Redirect List of Belarus-related topics to Belarus
Redirect Index of Belgium-related articles to Belgium
Redirect Index of Benin-related articles to Benin
Redirect Index of Bermuda-related articles to Bermuda
Redirect Index of Bhutan-related articles to Bhutan
Redirect List of Botswana-related topics to Botswana
Redirect Index of Bulgarian Empire–related articles to Bulgarian Empire
Redirect Index of Burkina Faso–related articles to Burkina Faso
Redirect Index of Burundi-related articles to Burundi
Redirect Index of Byzantine Empire–related articles to Byzantine Empire
Redirect Index of Cambodia-related articles to Cambodia
Redirect Index of Cameroon-related articles to Cameroon
Redirect Index of Canada-related articles to Canada
Redirect Index of Cape Verde–related articles to Cape Verde
Redirect Index of Cayman Islands–related articles to Cayman Islands
Redirect List of Central African Republic–related topics to Central African Republic
Redirect Index of Chad-related articles to Chad
Redirect Index of Chile-related articles to Chile
Redirect Index of Cocos (Keeling) Islands–related articles to Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Redirect Index of Colombia-related articles to Colombia
Redirect Index of Comoros-related articles to Comoros
Redirect Index of Cook Islands–related articles to Cook Islands
Redirect Index of Costa Rica–related articles to Costa Rica
Redirect Index of Croatia-related articles to Croatia
Redirect Index of Cuba-related articles to Cuba
Redirect Index of Cyprus-related articles to Cyprus
Redirect List of Czech Republic–related topics to Czech Republic
Redirect Index of Democratic Republic of the Congo–related articles to Democratic Republic of the Congo
Redirect Index of Denmark-related articles to Denmark
Redirect Index of Djibouti-related articles to Djibouti
Redirect Index of Dominica-related articles to Dominica
Redirect Index of Dominican Republic–related articles to Dominican Republic
Redirect Index of East Germany–related articles to East Germany
Redirect List of East Timor–related topics to East Timor
Redirect Index of Ecuador-related articles to Ecuador
Redirect Index of Egypt-related articles to Egypt
Redirect Index of modern Egypt–related articles to modern Egypt
Redirect Index of El Salvador–related articles to El Salvador
Redirect Index of Equatorial Guinea–related articles to Equatorial Guinea
Redirect Index of Eritrea-related articles to Eritrea
Redirect Index of Estonia-related articles to Estonia
Redirect Index of Ethiopia-related articles to Ethiopia
Redirect Index of Falkland Islands–related articles to Falkland Islands
Redirect Index of Federated States of Micronesia–related articles to Federated States of Micronesia
Redirect Index of Fiji-related articles to Fiji
Redirect List of Finland-related topics to Finland
Redirect Index of French Guiana–related articles to French Guiana
Redirect Index of French Polynesia–related articles to French Polynesia
Redirect Index of Gabon-related articles to Gabon
Redirect Index of Gambia-related articles to Gambia
Redirect Index of Georgia (country)-related articles to Georgia (country)
Redirect Index of Germany-related articles to Germany
Redirect Index of Ghana-related articles to Ghana
Redirect Index of Greece-related articles to Greece
Redirect Index of Greenland-related articles to Greenland
Redirect Index of Grenada-related articles to Grenada
Redirect Index of Guadeloupe-related articles to Guadeloupe
Redirect Index of Guam-related articles to Guam
Redirect Index of Guatemala-related articles to Guatemala
Redirect Index of Guernsey-related articles to Guernsey
Redirect Index of Guinea-related articles to Guinea
Redirect Index of Guinea-Bissau-related articles to Guinea-Bissau
Redirect Index of Guyana-related articles to Guyana
Redirect Index of Haiti-related articles to Haiti
Redirect Index of Honduras-related articles to Honduras
Redirect Index of articles related to Hong Kong to Hong Kong
Redirect Index of Hungary-related articles to Hungary
Redirect Index of Indonesia-related articles to Indonesia
Redirect List of Ireland-related topics to Ireland
Redirect Index of Israel-related articles to Israel
Redirect Index of Italy-related articles to Italy
Redirect Index of Ivory Coast–related articles to Ivory Coast
Redirect Index of Jamaica-related articles to Jamaica
Redirect Index of Japan-related articles to Japan
Redirect Index of Jordan-related articles to Jordan
Redirect Index of Kazakhstan-related articles to Kazakhstan
Redirect Index of Kenya-related articles to Kenya
Redirect Index of Kuwait-related articles to Kuwait
Redirect Index of Kyrgyzstan-related articles to Kyrgyzstan
Redirect List of Laos-related topics to Laos
Redirect Index of Lesotho-related articles to Lesotho
Redirect Index of Liberia-related articles to Liberia
Redirect Index of Libya-related articles to Libya
Redirect Index of Lithuania-related articles to Lithuania
Redirect Index of Macau-related articles to Macau
Redirect Index of Madagascar-related articles to Madagascar
Redirect List of Malaysia-related topics to Malaysia
Redirect List of Maldives-related topics to Maldives
Redirect Index of Mali-related articles to Mali
Redirect Index of Malta-related articles to Malta
Redirect Index of Marshall Islands–related articles to Marshall Islands
Redirect Index of Martinique-related articles to Martinique
Redirect Index of Mauritania-related articles to Mauritania
Redirect Index of Mauritius-related articles to Mauritius
Redirect Index of Mexico-related articles to Mexico
Redirect Index of Mongolia-related articles to Mongolia
Redirect Index of Montserrat-related articles to Montserrat
Redirect Index of Morocco-related articles to Morocco
Redirect Index of Mozambique-related articles to Mozambique
Redirect Index of Namibia-related articles to Namibia
Redirect Index of Nauru-related articles to Nauru
Redirect Index of Netherlands Antilles–related articles to Netherlands Antilles
Redirect Index of Nicaragua-related articles to Nicaragua
Redirect Index of Nigeria-related articles to Nigeria
Redirect List of Northern Ireland–related topics to Northern Ireland
Redirect Index of Northern Mariana Islands-related articles to Northern Mariana Islands
Redirect Index of Oman-related articles to Oman
Redirect Index of Palau-related articles to Palau
Redirect Index of Panama-related articles to Panama
Redirect Index of Paraguay-related articles to Paraguay
Redirect Index of Peru-related articles to Peru
Redirect Index of Portugal-related articles to Portugal
Redirect Index of Puerto Rico–related articles to Puerto Rico
Redirect List of Qatar-related topics to Qatar
Redirect Index of Republic of the Congo–related articles to Republic of the Congo
Redirect Index of Rwanda-related articles to Rwanda
Redirect Index of Saint Barthélemy–related articles to Saint Barthélemy
Redirect Index of Saint Kitts and Nevis–related articles to Saint Kitts and Nevis
Redirect Index of Saint Lucia–related articles to Saint Lucia
Redirect Index of the Collectivity of Saint Martin–related articles to the Collectivity of Saint Martin
Redirect Index of Saint Pierre and Miquelon–related articles to Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Redirect Index of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–related articles to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Redirect Index of San Marino–related articles to San Marino
Redirect Index of Sasanian Empire–related articles to Sasanian Empire
Redirect Index of Saudi Arabia–related articles to Saudi Arabia
Redirect Index of Senegal-related articles to Senegal
Redirect Index of Serbia-related articles to Serbia
Redirect Index of Seychelles-related articles to Seychelles
Redirect Index of Singapore-related articles to Singapore
Redirect Index of Somalia-related articles to Somalia
Redirect Index of Somaliland-related articles to Somaliland
Redirect Index of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands–related articles to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Redirect Index of Soviet Union–related articles to Soviet Union
Redirect Index of Switzerland-related articles to Switzerland
Redirect Index of Syria-related articles to Syria
Redirect Index of Taiwan-related articles to Taiwan
Redirect Index of Tibet-related articles to Tibet
Redirect Index of Tokelau-related articles to Tokelau
Redirect Index of Trinidad and Tobago–related articles to Trinidad and Tobago
Redirect Index of Tunisia-related articles to Tunisia
Redirect Index of Turkey-related articles to Turkey
Redirect Index of Turkmenistan-related articles to Turkmenistan
Redirect Index of Turks and Caicos Islands–related articles to Turks and Caicos Islands
Redirect Index of Uganda-related articles to Uganda
Redirect List of United Arab Emirates–related topics to United Arab Emirates
Redirect Index of United Kingdom–related articles to United Kingdom
Redirect Index of United States Virgin Islands–related articles to United States Virgin Islands
Redirect Index of Uruguay-related articles to Uruguay
Redirect Index of Vatican City–related articles to Vatican City
Redirect Index of Venezuela-related articles to Venezuela
Redirect Index of Republic of Venice-related articles to Republic of Venice
Redirect Index of Vietnam-related articles to Vietnam
Redirect Index of Yemen-related articles to Yemen
Redirect Index of Zambia-related articles to Zambia
Redirect Index of Zimbabwe-related articles to Zimbabwe

Cunard (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I am good with redirecting these to keep the page history. The maintained ones still belong in Wikiprojects, not mainspace. Reywas92^Talk 16:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Lacks sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met, purpose is better served by categories. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please never officially suggest lists should be replaced by a category, a common but utterly mistaken concept often used in deletion discussions. See, memorize, tattoo on forearm, rinse and repeat WP:CLN, whose summary reads "This page in a nutshell: Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others." Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per others and precedent in related areas. Navboxes, categories, and lists are better suited for this. ValarianB (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1 this comment could be controversial, but currently indices I have seen are not obeying the WP:5P2 part that says that all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources. I could not find a reason to be exempted from this rule (or to apply WP:5P5 over WP:5P2; does "no firm rules" refers only to policies and guidelines or also applies to the other pillars?) in the case of indices. Despite the claimed active support of some of them, I still can't see in them the citations. 2 According to WP:SAL, Indices, alphabetized lists of articles on a given subject, are part of Wikipedia's Contents navigation system, but this goal is not appropriate for a page in the article namespace, intended to contain encyclopedic entries, they should not work as full page navboxes. --Onwa (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's how people envisaged Wikipedia's index as working from nearly the start. Both the indexing system and the disambiguation article system are results of the fact that MediaWiki didn't have any ways to share titles between articles or to automatically index articles. The index is actually a (hand-written) part of the encyclopaedia proper, not part of the internal project namespace. It's there for readers. It's there for re-users. It's not solely a writers-only thing. If one were to design afresh a collaborative editing tool for an encyclopaedia writing project (and reading tool for its readers), not making the same mistakes again in this regard would I hope be high on the list. But as it is, we have hand-written indexes, and they go in the namespace where the encyclopaedia proper is. Uncle G (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Delete the unmaintained ones and merge any of the maintained ones to their outline article. As an example, List of Belarus-related topics while using a slightly different layout, duplicates Outline of Belarus. --Gonnym (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym, Index of Vatican City-related articles has well over 400 views a day and sometimes thousands, Outline of Vatican City has 26 views a day. Please consider removing this popular index from your decision, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is why there are categories. These lists are not updated and are out of date.Fulmard (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't suggest lists should be replaced by a category, a concept often used in deletion discussions. See WP:CLN, whose summary reads "This page in a nutshell: Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others." Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per nominator really. The others mostly confirmed. My recommendation is that the closing message will say that articles can be made available for copying to wikiprojects or personal space. Kudos to the contributors who kept these anachronistic articles up-to-date. You're off the hook and can move on to the next challenge! gidonb (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we must make an exception for a few cases (maybe because of the traffic, which is a fact on the ground), my recommendation would be to make this for the three city-states: Monaco, Singapore, and Vatican City, rather than for the three articles here mentioned as well maintained: Armenia, Singapore, and Vatican City. This would be more systematic, for example, until we phase out such articles out entirely. Not at all convinced that making exceptions is necessary but there is for these rare cases at least the beginning of an argument to keep. My personal recommendation (item above) is and remains to delete all. gidonb (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all without prejudice to focused nominations as it is clear that these articles span a wide range of quality, activity, views, structure, etc. Some of them can likely be kept, some should possibly be deleted, some will have scope for a merge or partial merge. However there are far too many to reliably evaluate nearly 200 individual articles in 7 days let alone for someone who didn't see the nomination until part way through. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 24 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idhika Paul

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

Previously R2 deleted but author recreated. It seems WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NACTOR TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT in my opinion. A WP:BEFORE is necessary. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 16:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in fact aware of sources that would show WP:GNG, it would be good if you could add them to the article. At the moment there are two sources, neither of which does anything to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 18:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried finding sources, but yes, it is true that she fails WP:GNG. Almost no coverage in secondary sources. Also the name of the article was really confusing. As far as I knew, she was Tumpa Paul, not Idhika. So that was really confusing. But Bonadea ruled out the matter. Wonder how he knows so much, and I being a Bengali also did not know the fact that Idhika Paul was created as an alternative to Tumpa Paul, which could also be a WP:UPE. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia free of UPE articles. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Claim of passing NACTOR needs to be backed up by reliable sources, explaining the significance of these roles which is absent here. Having linked articles may help but is not guaranteed without presenting verifiable evidence. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tumpa Paul about the same actor, as well as the deletion logs of Tumpa Paul, Draft:Tumpa Paul and Draft:Paul Tumpa]; there's a history of UPE, and of recreating the article in mainspace after it has been draftified or declined in AfC (sound familiar?). It is clear from a WP:BEFORE search that WP:ENT is not met, and as for WP:GNG there's no sign of any secondary and independent sources, and no in-depth coverage in the primary/non-independent sources that show up. --bonadea contributions talk 18:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a similar creation Megha Daw by same editor that fails WP:ENT and looks like a WP:BLP1E. Tagging @Ab207 and Bonadea: for having a look if they wish. 2402:3A80:6A7:982F:CD3F:73E8:3A3:22CE (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither the subject is passing WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG independently. ManaliJain (talk) 12:07, 23 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KUPS (database)

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see any notability here, although if someone were to present it I'd consider. To me, it fails WP:NOTCATALOG and just doesn't seem to "fit" into Wikipedia. Perhaps enthusiastic editors could try another wiki more suited.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While there is no indication of notability in the article, indications of notability can readily be found in [32]. Per Paulmcdonald's thoughts abut salvaging this content, perhaps transwikying to Wikidata is a possible ATD? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: We have a Wikidata entry for this database, Q6339697, but it is unsourced, so I would prefer Transwiki to Wikidata Q6339697 to delete. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability as above, plus database link is 404. This is one of a number of 'drive-by' articles on bioinformatics databases by the same author (now apparently retired from WP). Amkilpatrick (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikidata Q6339697 - no prospects for growth as a Wikipedia article, but the material is usable to supplement what we have at Wikidata. I can do this transwikying. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL there is no need to "relist" this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:18, 20 February 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 00:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Azad University, Arak Branch

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

This is a non-notable branch of Islamic Azad University due to the fact that both references in the article are primary and I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that works for notability. Just a couple of extremely trivial name drops in a few articles about other things. So I'm nominating this for deletion. Considering the poor state of the article I don't think it's worth merging or redirecting to Islamic Azad University either. Although I'd be fine with either option as an ATD if someone can find sources to justify it. Adamant1 (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I think deletion may be in order as opposed to merging with the school's main article as the information is unsourced. However merging or another ATD may be in order. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 12:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability MedGME (talk) 14:56, 21 February 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groep fan Auwerk

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Looks a bit like selfpromo. Recreation of an earlier removed article. The Banner talk 11:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found one extensive source on the "free Frisian" movement that talks about this group: "The Frisians as an Indigenous Minority Group within a Unified Europe", but I didn't find other sources. It is possible that this can replace the non-independent sources in the article, which might bring it up to "barely keep". Also, I didnt find the Leeuwarder Courant article that is poorly cited in the article. Finding that could be helpful. Lamona (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I usually agree with the nominator but this group received so much coverage in the Leeuwarder Courant [33] that I cannot agree with this one. Agree that this article needs cleaning up. gidonb (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, but most of these articles are about their actions (commemorations, Frisian language placename signs, Frisian flags etc.) and not about the group itself. The Banner talk 17:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the development and promotion of shared histories, symbols, signage, and proposals for political divisions of space core business for a nonviolent separatist group? gidonb (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. According to another editor: individual protests not relevant. The Banner talk 23:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for this cleanup. Precisely what I suggest. I agree that this list of all their campaigns was not helpful. The more important ones are mentioned in the history and were justifiably not removed, so this is redundant. Furthermore, the dates these reports went out are not historical dates. In addition to this cleanup, the flag business needs clarification and the list of possible Frisian territories, just rehashes stuff elsewhere. Can be deleted as well. Low German has gotten this right. gidonb (talk) 00:34, 23 February 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. Michig (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.K. M.E.

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:NBAND; they have a charting single but that's about it. – DarkGlow • 20:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 20:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As is stands, delete, but if anybody can work a brief, valid mention of them into C+C Music Factory then I'd be equally happy for it to be a redirect' to that. I can't see any indication that they are notable independent of C+C Music Factory. They do seem to have released a couple of singles in their own right but they don't seem to have gone anywhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I added a brief mention of their appearance in that one song to the C+C Music Factory article; see my vote below.~~ ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – & Merge into C&C Music Factory. Appears to fall under WP:1E as a featured artist that reached 1 on US Dance. Notability established for inclusion, but not with sufficient breadth for a standalone article.Bgv. (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:NBAND. Should be merged with C&C Music Factory. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 12:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't think they're eligible for the suggested merge because "I'll Always be Around" is a C+C Music Factory song and A.S.K. M.E. was only "featured". Then they disappeared. Where that song is mentioned in the C+C Music Factory article, I have added "featuring A.S.K. M.E." and that is all Wikipedia needs about this group. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And then my brief mention at C+C Music Factory was reverted for being unsourced (I couldn't find anything reliable) so that reveals even more about the lack of notability for A.S.K. M.E. while there is nothing to merge. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Does not meet notability guidelines. I agree with Bgv.DanielRigal Mommmyy (talk) 07:14, 27 February 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 02:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrant TV Network

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

This company and its services fail the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable company. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:50, 23 February 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. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhna TV

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

Television channel fails the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this TV channel is popular in India. It is one of the most popular religious TV channels of India. It should be improved instead of deleting. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ThePremiumBoy: I don't want to sound rude here, but it would really be a good idea for you to read and understand Wikipedia's inclusion policy, WP:Notability, before making any more comments on deletion discussions. "It's popular" is not a valid reason to have an article, what matters is whether the subject of the article has been covered in depth in reliable, independent sources (or if it meets a subject specific notability guideline). I've seen you make a number of these "X should be improved rather than deleted" comments over the last couple of days, all completely devoid of any understanding of Wikipedia policy, and to be blunt it's becoming a bit disruptive. As a relative newbie who's only been here a few days you should be focusing on learning policy and improving articles, rather than getting involved in "behind the scenes" areas. Just some advice from a very long term IP editor. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 20 February 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. Two relists didn't attract any further participation, so another one seems pointless. Michig (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsakana Nkandih

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only know from WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 10:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, really only one event here, since both were so close together, and one is (as I understand) basically a qualifier for the other. Whilst Namibia is lacking coverage, I don't think that this is what it needs. Mako001 (C) (T) 14:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is known for two events, because the national qualifying pageant and Miss Universe (e.g. Getty) are distinct events, and an online search supports WP:BASIC notability, e.g. 1 (AllAfrica, 2012), 2 (BellaNaija, 2012), 3 (AllAfrica, 2016), and various articles in The Namibian. Per the Wikiproject Beauty Pageants essay on notability, Winners of the national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants are [...] generally presumed to be notable. Beccaynr (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Are that community guidelines or local guidelines? The Banner talk 20:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being Miss Namibia or first place of country beauty pageant, means she meets criterion #3 and maybe #1 of WP:ENT and meets also WP:NBEAUTY. Caphadouk (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Are that community guidelines or local guidelines? The Banner talk 20:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 15:58, 25 February 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. Although the unrebutted analysis by people who are familiar with this aspect of Polish legal organization suggests that this deletion request results from a misunderstanding. Any further cleanup that is required can be done without deletion. Sandstein 13:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Advisor (Poland)

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

Seems to be a WP:FORK of Lawyers in Poland. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomintor's rationale is poor, in fact they present no arguments, just an opinion. The article is well referenced. They failed to note that pl wiki separates the concept of a legal advisor (pl:Doradca prawny) and Lawyers in Poland. The latter doesn't have a Polish interwiki, but given pl:prawnik = Jurist, while pl:adwokat = Adwokat, the "lawyers in Poland" is covered by the pl:Adwokat#Adwokaci_w_Polsce section, which actually forms most of that article (and should be split, I'll tackle this soon and fix the interwikis). Anyway, since the nom didn't question notability or such, but just suggested this is a fork, given the existence of separate Polish articles and their content, I'd say the terms are related but not forks. If anyone disagrees, they need to provide a deeper analysis of this. I'll end by WP:TROUTing the nom for this low quality nomination based on, well, pretty much nothing substantial. PS. Legal systems are complex; there are sill Polish wikipedia articles about Polish legal systems, including professions and titles, that are not translated (ex. pl:radca prawny, pl:mecenas). Separately, the article discussed here may need to be moved to attorney-at-law (Poland) per the terminology recommendation by a relevant Polish professional body (pl:Krajowa Rada Radców Prawnych, which also doesn't have an English article yet). See pl:Doradca_prawny#Legal_advisor_w_systemie_common_law for some discussion on translations and relation to English terms, including attorney-at-law, legal advisor, solicitor, barrister, etc. On that note this entire nom makes about as much sense in the Polish law contexts and suggesting that we should merge articles about solicitors and barristers... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, out of scope for an AfD debate, but the article gets off on a bad foot by stating "The status of legal advisors is not regulated by law", and in the very next sentence, "Only lawyers can be legal advisors", thereby leaving any non-Polish reader completely flummoxed about what a legal advisor actually is. Part of me thinks that it would make some sense to include legal advisors in the article on Lawyers in Poland, from which they are firmly absent. I have no objection to this article being kept (to avoid bloat in other articles), but would remind its editors that we are a general English-language encyclopaedia, not a Polish law school. The detailed discussion of the Constitutional Tribunal ruling in 2003 should probably be summarised in a single sentence. Elemimele (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that legal advisors are linked from that article. I admit this is confusing, and trust me, not just in English - I was quote puzzled when I realized in Polish, which is my native language, we have the separate concepts of "radca prawny" and "doradca prawny". Both appear to be notable, however. Wikipedia may be English-language, but we have a ton of articles on concepts, including legal, from other languages, so that part of your argument I think is not relevant. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lawyers in Poland. Definitely a language problem (attorney, counselor, barrister, solicitor, advocate, and their Polish equivalents) involved in finding sources. Question about this being a topic fork? I know very little about this subject in this jurisdiction. Nie rozumiem języka polskiego. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts to that!
Legal advisors in Poland most definitely are regulated by law. The law is Ustawa o radcach prawnych, Dz. U., 2010, vol. 10, No. 65 . And advocates are regulated by a different law, Prawo o adwokaturze, Dz. U., 1982, vol. 16, No. 124 . English language sources like Marchiwicki & Niedužak 2013 (which gives these laws) call them "legal advisors" and "advocates", so let's not make up our own translations. Britishizing/Americanizing this stuff leads to false equivalences.
And they most definitely are required to maintain secrecy. That's actually what Marchiwicki & Niedužak 2013 is all about, and it even gives the exact places in the two respective Codes of Ethics that require this. And unlike the anonymously authored and wrong article in BusinessInsider that is being used, that book chapter is written by two identified members of the professional ethics committee.
Please improve this rubbish and wrong explanation, or just write it in the right place. Nascimbene & Bergamini 2009 explains the differences between legal advisors and advocates, in English for non-Polish readers. It also treats the twain together, pretty much inextricably and at length, and I observe that Lawyers in Poland#The distinction between advocates and attorneys at law does so too, but cites almost nothing except a couple of WWW sites, when it could be citing an expert-written book on the subject from a couple of EU/international law professors.
And where the Polish Wikipedia is using an anonymous inexpert article from BusinessInsider instead of actual expert sources written by identifiable people with credentials in the field, it is wrong, too.
Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Marchiwicki, Wjciech; Niedužak, Marek (2013). "Poland". In Barreau de Bruxelles (ed.). Professional Secrecy of Lawyers in Europe. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107031630.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Nascimbene, Bruno; Bergamini, Elisabetta (2009). "Member States' Rules on the Legal Profession: Poland". The Legal Profession in the European Union. Kluwer European law collection. Vol. 6. Kluwer Law International B.V. pp. 169 et seq. ISBN 9789041125774.
Comment:
Hi, short explanation from my side.

1) In Poland, we have advocates (adwokaci) and attorneys-at-law (radcowie prawni). Notice how law firms in Poland, for example, Polish units of Deloitte, name their lawyers without admission to the bar. Usually "associates", "in-house" (I'm not a fan of this distinction, because, in my opinion, it should be a professional attorney) or "legal advisors".

2) It is distinctive that we have a profession that is not regulated in the separate act of parliament, and I think it's worth representation on Wiki. This article does not create "alternative facts". Google "doradztwo prawne" or "biura doradztwa prawnego", it's a Polish phenomenon.

3) The National Bar Council of Attorneys-at-Law (See: the resolution of 22 September 2018) adopted the official translation of the legal profession of radca prawny as attorney-at-law. Link: https://www.oirpwarszawa.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/uchwa%C5%82a-102_2018-KRRP.pdf

Centyja (talk) 19:58, 22 February 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Potroz

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRU. — HTGS (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NRU with 30 appearances in the NPC, a notable league under WP:NRU guidelines. In terms of GNG coverage there's this and this I've found in a very basic search and there's heaps of other mentions in that search, which suggests in a more detailed search, especially into local Taranaki media, and other NZ sources, more will be found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn’t actually realise that appearance in the NPC met NRU. This is a shockingly soft standard though, when considering that minor league baseball at a similar level is not deemed notable.

Your seco*nd source doesn’t meet SIGCOV, but the other one is respectable, I just have a hard time seeing that as enough. — HTGS (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The NPC is a professional rugby union league, which is what the original guidelines were based on. The competition and the players involved do get good coverage in NZ media. I'll try and do a more in-depth search for sourcing though if I get the time. @Kidsoljah: is a keen NPC and Taranaki editor so he might be able to help out. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it meets special notability guidelines. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:01, 27 February 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 02:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhama Kalapam (1988 film)

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

No reliable sources, can't find any even via Google. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 20 February 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharapova–S. Williams rivalry

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

While she was a contemporary player, this was a lopsided destruction and not a true rivalry. It's one thing to be mentioned casually on either of these two player articles, but quite another to have a pretty useless stand-alone article. Per Tennis Project, rivalry articles are not inherently notable and rivalries such as Agassi–Rafter and Federer–Hewitt have been deleted by the community. This was also partially discussed at [[34]]. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Fyunck(click) that this was not really a notable rivalry. Does not need a standalone article.InfiNeuro (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Martina Navratilova says Serena only had two rivals of note: her sister Venus (Williams sisters rivalry) and Justine Henin (Henin–S. Williams rivalry),[35] ~~and who am I to argue?~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sports Illustrated says otherwise ("The five major moments in the history of the Serena-Sharapova rivalry"), as do the Associated Press ("Look Back: Serena vs. Sharapova, an enduring rivalry"), Bleacher Report ("Why Serena Williams vs. Maria Sharapova Is Still the WTA's Best Rivalry"), Tennis magazine ("Serena's Slams: A rivalry turns Down Under as Williams survives Sharapova"), etc. Apparently, even a lopsided rivalry is still a rivalry (if there's enough ill-will, maybe?). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, e.g. also: Vox, 2017 ("Williams is a prominent fixture in Sharapova's book and in many of the popular narratives surrounding Sharapova."), Rolling Stone, 2017 (discussing Sharapova's book, quoting Sharapova about Williams: "Only a few people in the world know what we know – what it feels like in the dead center of this storm, the fear and anger that drive you, how it is to win and how it is to lose. But we are not friends – not at all."), New York Times, 2017 (also discussing the book, "Sharapova speaks of Williams in a detailed and often antagonistic way rarely used to discuss an active rival."), SkySports, 2016 (quoting Sharapova discussing Williams: "It's motivating because she's at a different level. She makes you go back to the drawing board, not just for me, but for many other players. She makes you work. That's inspiring."). Even this lopsided rivalry meets the GNG because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, based on the sources identified in this discussion, in the article, and otherwise available online, which can allow this article to be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clarityfiend and Beccaynr have provided enough sources to establish notability. This is one of the few memorable rivalries on the WTA tour in recent decades, despite the lopsidedness of it on court. Letcord (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources consider this to be a noteworthy tennis rivalry. Whether or not it was "a lopsided destruction" is subjective, that's kind of a personal judgement call. And rivalries don't have to be close either. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:03, 27 February 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. Michig (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang Entertainments

AfDs for this article:

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

Same reason as previous AfD four years ago - film announcements, which are all that's available on web, aren't enough for WP:NCORP. Hemantha (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fully agree with Hemantha here that announcements about films and an empty award section make this article lack the level of substance required for an article on Wikipedia. It appears that the same issue since 2015 has remained unresolved. I lean towards a delete rather than speedy delete.InfiNeuro (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references mention the actual company in more than a passing fashion. Fails WP:NCORP. Some of the films produced by the company are notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 16:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Does not meet NCORP. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because a company produces films, doesn’t mean they are notable. As others have said there’s no awards issued to them, independent press coverage about actual films, no information on the publics response etc. GeekBurst (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a simple company with no notable achievements. Misasory (talk) 21:12, 26 February 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 05:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nupur sanon

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references in the article and it seems like it should be a draft, if that - not in the mainspace yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiNeuro (talk • contribs) 06:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: See Nupur Sanon. Delete as it fails WP:NSINGER as well as NACTOR. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no assertion of notability here and lack of significant coverage. Brayan ocaner (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Clearly fails GNG / ENT. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP policy, no references. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 01:35, 25 February 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 05:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Humber Consumer Research Panel

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

I am unable to find evidence of notability for this panel. Although some of its work is mentioned in some studies, it doesn't appear to be the focus of those studies and none are highly cited. The article creator redirected it to a parent organization but @PamD: contested it. so we're here. Star Mississippi 02:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage anywhere, and the article's references don't help. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, please delete this page. I'm not even sure that the group is still going. Your best bet to find that out would be to contact the NHS trust directly via https://www.hey.nhs.uk/research/research-reviewer/ Dj manton (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:rsjaffe**
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
InvoDirect Database	"This online resource is a directory of networks, groups and organisations that support active public involvement in NHS..."	✘ No
National Institute for Health Research Annual Report	No mention in the report	✘ No
HYCCN Annual Report	? Dead link	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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.