Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:42, 1 June 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 31	June 02 >

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 keep‎. Whether it's kept or organized into separate topics, a consensus isn't going to emerge to delete this. Sourcing has been identified wit which to solve the issues. Star Mississippi 01:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witches (Discworld)

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

Fictional grouping of characters; some of which may have stand-alone notability and have their own articles (Granny Weatherwax, Nanny Ogg, Tiffany Aching), others could be merged to List of Discworld characters if they don't have an entry there already. The article has no analysis/reception or anything indicating this group has stand-alone notability and needs to have a separate article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article needs thorough cleanup, not deletion. Both the characters and the topic of witches and witchcraft are crucial to the Discworld series, and a number of withches like Magrat can be briefly described here (the current article has way too much in-universe info though), next to the three main ones which have their own articles. But the general concepts of witches and witchcraft in the Discworld series is what should be the core of this article, based on secondary sources like this one (e.g. the 14-page chapter "Be a Witch, be a Woman"). Witchcraft in Discworld novels is the central theme of multiple essats in "Philosophy and Terry Pratchett". This deals mostly with Tiffany Aching but has also enough to say about the other witches and witchcraft in Pratchett's works in general. This 14-page article is often referenced in other works about the topic as well. Fram (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those look like solid sources, but again, the current article needs TNT-ing - although I concur this can be achieved without hard deletion, just shortening the fancruft by ~90% or so. Then we can add the sources you found, or if nobody does it, at least replace {{notability}} with {{sources exist}}. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Fram, who looked up all the nice sources so I didn't have to. Ping me if more are needed. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Any chance you could add those sources to the article and/or remove some fancruft? I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if the article improves. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why, do you not have time? Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Joe (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. Potentially notable topic, but article is unusable in its entirety and needs to be rewritten (possibly under Witchcraft in the Discworld series). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:01, 7 June 2023
Please elaborate how WP:TNT applies to notable topics. (Hint: it does not) Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It states that "With articles, this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article." That is precisely how it applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Useless, eh? You assert that NO current or past content of this article (on a topic you admit is worth having an article) is of any value whatsoever? That's manifestly unsupportable, as the content includes references to the primary sources themselves which would appear in any GA-level article on the topic. Just because it's not cited or organized the way you or I want does not mean such a pejorative applies. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Fram has suggested the article has WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues. Bruxton (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic. The plot summary is simply too long and the analysis almost absent. But both can be remedied through normal editing, now that secondary sources have been identified. Looking at the TNT tipping point argument that was just cited: Is there anything in the current article which would be kept in a "good" version of this article? Sure, there would: The intro (which contains the one bit of analysis present), the works list, the "In other media" section, and of course selective parts of the plot summary. That's how WP:TNT tells us that this is not a case for deletion. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This title could potentially refer to three different but related topics: (1) the "sub-series" of Discworld stories containing among others Wyrd Sisters and Lords and Ladies, (2) the Discworld group of characters including Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg, or (3) the general concept of witchcraft in Discworld. It's plausible that all three of those could work as stand-alone articles, but they would need to be three different articles. The article is currently, at least ostensibly, about the group of characters, i.e. (2). TompaDompa (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that this COULD work out as three articles, but I do disagree that it necessarily be organized that way. Done well, one article could cover all three subtopics as you've identified them. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you do that, one of them still has to be the topic of the article in which context the other two are presented. Methinks the overall concept of witchcraft in Discworld (3) would be the best choice for that, and the group of characters (2) the worst. TompaDompa (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There appears to be consensus that the page does not need to be removed in its entirety, though editors may wish to apply explosives at their leisure. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nac Mac Feegle

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a very long plot summary with not a shred of indication of notability (it was already deleted in 2014 for the same reason but apparently recreated - no, sorry, I don't feel this has been improved sufficiently). My BEFORE finds mostly the same in scholarly works (Pratchett's overall visibility in academia is suprisingly high). This has two sentences of decent analysis, but that's a far cry from WP:SIGCOV. And let's face it, even if we find a bit more, 99% of this article is fancruft in need of WP:TNTing. I suggest redirecting this to The Wee Free Men in the spirit of WP:SOFTDELETE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested seems ok, this isn't notable alone. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't believe you do that book justice by claiming that there are only "two sentences of decent analysis" of the Nac Mac Feegle, page 19-23 have whole long paragraphs about them, basically 5 pages about them, not just two sentences. Now, something like this may come closer to the 2-sentence-mark than the 5-page-mark, but it still is an additional secondary reliable source about them. I'm unable to see just how much this book has to say about them, but this one has enough to warrant a keep (no page numbers, but e.g. the section starting "The Wee Free Men are "the way around the rules" embodied" and the next pages place the Nac Mac Feegle in an anarchist perspective). They have their own section in this French book. Most of the pages on them in this book are not accessible to me (I can see p. 150, but not 151-152), but it discusses the origin of them as a mixture of pixies, Picts, and ants. If they only appeared in Wee Free Men, then a redirect might have been for the best; but as they are central characters in 5 or 6 books, and have received more than enough commentary as highlighted above, having a separate article is fully warranted, even if the current one needs loads of work. Fram (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For the record, the two sentences I referred to where in the book review, not the book. Sadly I don't have access to this book through Google Books, but I'll see if I can find other ways. If you are correct, the topic may be notable (good), but I still think the current article needs a WP:TNT treatment - although this can be done without admin hard deletion, just by gratitious reducing this fancruft to a stub, and/or expanding it with the sources you found. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A copy can be found at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/secretsofweefree0000pyyk --Auric talk 21:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) Keep per Fram, who has my thanks for doing that so I didn't need to, but can search out further sources if needed. I also agree that redirection to a single book is inappropriate as they are major characters in multiple notable Discworld books.

2) Thanks for the courtesy ping.

3) "Fancruft" is not now, and never has been, a reason for WP:TNT per the essay itself. The vast majority of times that essay is cited, it is cited in a manner inconsistent with its own wording, and this would be one of those times. No objection to appropriate cleanup, but as I just addressed at Unseen University, people seem unwilling to do the nuanced work to actually improve and integrate, rather than eliminate, coverage. Deleting stuff is easy; making it into encyclopedic coverage is much harder. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maguffin

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

Lack of notbility Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COMPANY. No media coverage at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the link which used to point to their homepage and now points to unsafe content. No sources and no claim of notability; the only Google hits are Wiki mirrors. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH with a lack of reliable sources coverage. In fact I couldn't find anything about it at all, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonkin enterprise multiple

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

No WP:SIGCOV. Through WP:BEFORE I found some links ([1], [2]), but they both suspiciously are from the year of this Wiki article creation (2018) and have one author.

Also, the page is orphaned for a long time. MartinPict (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Artem.G (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jelena Đurović

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

This individual lacks notability and more importantly some information seems fabricated. For example, the article claims this individual to be "Vice President of the Jewish Community of Montenegro" but it is not true (the current website contradicts its previous version); ditto for "Chairwoman of OJC SEE". Also, "As a journalist, she works as film and TV critic", however she doesn't work for any notable media outlets, apart from her own blog, which is practically unknown but nevertheless advertised here. Magg17 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Montenegro, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Sources are very outdated and this person is really non relevant. Боки ✉ 17:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Off-wiki canvassing here, but I also find it peculiar that a new user account is created at 6:46, and an error-free, perfectly-f0ormed AfD is posted at 6:55. Zaathras (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's this, from the World Jewish Congress, [3], I assume is a RS and not related to the subject of this AfD. Plenty of sources in Serbian?, which I can't assess to notability or not using Gtranslate. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The real purpose of this (old) article seems to promote her blog. 151.57.238.164 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ekar (carsharing app)

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

Possible block violation and recreation. the page was drafted recently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ekar BoraVoro (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Middle East, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very Promo. An article about raising funds and an interview with the founder don't contribute much towards notability. I can't find any other sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say the amount of coverage from The National, Gulf Business, and Gulf News is sufficient, despite the promotional nature of the article. SWinxy (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The resources come from reliable websites which claim the notability of the company and passes WP:GNG. See Euronews-Meet the Entrepreneurs: Vilhelm Hedberg, The National (Abu Dhabi)-Why buy a car when you can save money on renting or sharing instead?, Forbes-MENA's Top 50 Most Funded-Startups, UAE’s ekar launches car subscription service in Saudi Arabia, The National (Abu Dhabi)-Generation start-up: UAE's ekar drives car-share sector at top speed, There's a new pay-per-hour car rental option in Dubai, Khaleej Times-Ekar adds 500,000 cars to its fleet. Rath Butcher (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't taken a super close look at the sources so no comment on whether those are independent, but I've done some c/e and removed some of the promo tone. Hope that helps. Blue Edits (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are promotional and superficial. NortonAngo (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails wP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think that the The National and Gulf News coverage could begin to establish a case for notability, but they do have a veneer of promotionality to them. The Gulf Business coverage is one step worse in this capacity, as it uses a collective byline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the most part I agree with Rosguill's analysis, but the Gulf Business articles read clearly of being press releases to me, Gulf News slightly less so, and both of them would fall under the standard notices/routine coverage parts of CORPDEPTH, so I am comfortable eliminating them entirely. Rest of the ghits seem more of the same. Two marginal articles from the same newsorg then, does not NCORP make. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American psychologists

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

This list had its entire contents blanked other than the intro in 2019 due a complete lack of citations. There has not been anyone added back to list the since then. It seems that at the very least if this were deleted it would possibly be constructed to an appropriate standard under WP:REDYES or at least would not be an article that at the current moment does not provide the information from the title. TartarTorte 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Judaism, and Psychology. TartarTorte 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On seeing this title I thought that "Jewish American psychologists" must be an unencyclopedic cross-categorization, but then I saw this book and found that they were listed extensively there. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you pls cite the exact page of the book? Thanks. Cinadon36 18:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole book is about Jewish American psychologists, as can be seen by the page that I linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about that. It is not evident by the title or the contents. Cinadon36 20:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What about the contents of Part III (pages 87-194)? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly not about the Jewish American Psychologists. It is about "jewish morality and the psychological shift of of American Culture" (part III title). Cinadon36 21:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if there's one source list about Jewish American psychologists, that's not enough to satisfy WP:NLIST, which requires multiple sources discussing the set. The list has been empty for over 3 years. At best this is a WP:TNT candidate that can be remade from scratch should someone decide to make a list with proper citations. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not enough reliable sources for list. Artem.G (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio. Viable ATD, with the history there for anyone wanting to merge. While this would appear to be a no consensus, the keeps, with the exception of Jahaza are not based in policy. Star Mississippi 02:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boardman Plaza

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP. Rationale from talk page It is a shopping plaza with no major significance and does not come close to anything WP:GNG. Just because of the companies who it does not make it worth an article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ohio. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no significant widespread coverage of this plaza. A lot of this information is trivia or mundane business operations, and there doesn't appear to be anything discussing its impact or depth in terms of history. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep starting on pg. 95 here[4] there's discussion of the plaza's role in regional development, as an early property in the DeBartolo portfolio, and an early example of the transition to the shopping center in the 1950s. If we don't keep the separate article, it should merge to Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio, where it is mentioned. Jahaza (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is only really a start. I don't think the vast bulk of information in the article is worth merging, however. The NYT article and this book could be worth a mention. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG criteria for notability. No inherent notability WP:ORGSIG. It's a run-of-the-mill strip mall, like thousands of others in the U.S. WP:MILL. Netherzone (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly seems run-of-the-mill now, but Google Books search results indicate this one is more significant than most. Peter James (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems run-of-the-mill. CastJared (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't being run of the mill a reason to delete not keep? Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this is a valid rationale for keeping. Netherzone (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article will cover more coverage. CastJared (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't explain anything about why run of the mill is a reason to keep. Timothytyy (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage, serving our role as social historians. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Stanley

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOV, also edited substantially by editors with COI and has had virtually no expansion from anyone else Toffeenix (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page history shows that the article was hijacked from a redirect in 2022 and all of the substantial edits since are from that user + one user who is accused of being the same user on their talk page. Looking past the WP:REFBOMB, as far as I can tell the only significant coverage is in the Monacomatin ref-- everything else is primary/an interview or a trivial mention in cast lists of reality show participants. There is a blog review of a song but that hardly establishes notability, so no WP:GNG. With no significant chart performance I don't think he satisfies WP:NMUSIC either. Blue Edits (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The chart seems to indicate he had a song chart in Billboard in Luxembourg; the link given doesn't confirm that. Appears to be a HOAX for that particular claim (text says he charted in spotify in Luxembourg, which isn't notable in wiki). Rest appears PROMO. Delete for not meeting NMUSIC or GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero coverage in Gnews; People article about a person hitting an alligator, that shares the same name as this fellow [5], then it's into the void for sourcing for the subject discussed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PDCP College Basaith Benipatti

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. No useful sources were surfaced by the minimum searches mentioned in WP:CONRED. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Bihar. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly suggested by MPGuy2824 above. --Bduke (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no references in 9 years and no indication of notability whatsoever. greyzxq ^talk 22:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Surprise for the Paynes (The Paynes)

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

Article is plot and cast list and has no additional value then what is presented at The Paynes#Episodes. Since the article's creator had created several of these, I believe it's better to bring it here than convert all to drafts and risk an edit war. If deleted, then make this a redirect to the episode table. Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three, no redirect Cast lists/type what I see recaps about a generic sitcom whose episodes were made in bulk, unlikely search as an ATD title. Nate • (chatter) 18:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user is still creating new articles about this. Heart ^(talk) 09:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable. No suitably-cited information to merge. I'm not sure why the page is titled "A Surprise for the Paynes (The Paynes)" rather than "A Surprise for the Paynes"; the latter seems a better redirect to The Paynes#Episodes. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revelations of Payne (The Paynes)

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

Article is plot and cast list and has no additional value then what is presented at The Paynes#Episodes. Since the article's creator had created several of these, I believe it's better to bring it here than convert all to drafts and risk an edit war. If deleted, then make this a redirect to the episode table. Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable. No suitably-cited information to merge. I'm not sure why the page is titled "Revelations of Payne (The Paynes)" rather than "Revelations of Payne"; the latter seems a better redirect to The Paynes#Episodes. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Fugitive in Payne (The Paynes)

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

Article is plot and cast list and has no additional value then what is presented at The Paynes#Episodes. Since the article's creator had created several of these, I believe it's better to bring it here than convert all to drafts and risk an edit war. If deleted, then make this a redirect to the episode table. Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to The Paynes. No sense to have this as separate page. Gothamk (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to The Paynes. as not independently notable. No suitably-cited information to merge. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is not a plausible search term so should not be redirected. WJ94 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The discussion went back and forth a bit, but rough consensus in the end is that, even taking into account the newly-added sources, the organisation isn't notable. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Unitarian Conference

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

notability, no sources, organization no longer seems to exist UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of being notable. No effective sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source cited is the organization's website, which says "Congratulations! You have successfully set up your website!" but has no actual content. If there are reliable independent sources, they need to be added to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck the above due to Eastmain's addition of references. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references and an archive of the group's website. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the references added to the article by Eastmain that show reliable sources coverage in books and newspapers so that WP:GNG is passed so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organization no longer exists, from what I can see. All of the references added seem to point to an organization that just "disappeared". If we do keep it, I think we should only do so if we update the article to use the past tense. Otherwise, we're suggesting that it's still an active organization, which doesn't appear to be true. (further edit) I found this Facebook post on what was their official Facebook group that seems to provide evidence that it no longer exists: https://www.facebook.com/groups/americanunitarian/posts/10167394170830074/ SilverAnsible (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thank you Eastmain for adding references. If it no longer exists, WP:NTEMP. Bruxton (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that references have been added, the article looks good enough for keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Now have multiple citations. CastJared (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked WP:CIR issues. scope_creep^Talk 22:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So 3 references got to do with the name of the organisation, which is WP:PRIMARY, 1 around the trademark, which is the name again, and one Ref 1, which comes from the organisation itselfs. 4 routine references and a WP:PRIMARY ref. None of these reference are independent and they fail WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS. They are absolutely junk and don't prove the organisation is notable. scope_creep^Talk 23:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is from The Chicago Tribune and mentions the setting up of the organisation here, reference 3 is about their opposition to gay marriage,ref 4 is about the organisation changing their name which is obviously relevant. Not great coverage but it is independent and relevant imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best you say about it, is that it verifies it existed, but the coverage is routine. Establishing an organisation and changing their name have been considered to fail WP:SIRS for about a decade. Its routine coverage. And its an affiliated news story for the Tribune. scope_creep^Talk 23:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm with scope_creep^Talk on this one. These reference don't prove the most important part of notability - significance. My vote doesn't change based on these sources. SilverAnsible (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't get all the keeps. The reference being held up as the best one is just a passing mention. The entirety of what the Chicago Tribune says is this: Two years ago, dissidents formed the American Unitarian Conference, saying liberal politics had overtaken the church. The conference's president, Virginia attorney David Burton.... The entirety of the Bangor Daily News article says David Burton of the American Unitarian Conference, a group calling the church to return to its theological roots, said Unitarian Universalist is a religion that does not have much religion left in it. Both of these then have a quote from Burton... and that's it. No information about the church other than, effectively, it's mission statement. The other two real sources cited, the Spokesman Review and the Gadsen Times ... are the same AP article. So it changed its name. That's clearly the best source of the bunch in terms of depth, and it's a pretty routine announcement that was published because the UU is notable, not because the AUC is notable. It merits inclusion in the UU article, not the creation of a separate one about an entity we can say almost nothing about. My own search for sources found a lot more copies of Wikipedia than anything else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches if there's anything relevant to be merged. Otherwise delete. Sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, consider sources added and the suggestion to Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - two solid references establish notability. ~~The Associated Press (AP) article in the Bangor Daily News provides a reliable, non-trivial reference for the article.~~ There's also the Associated Press article from the Gadsden Times about the dispute with the main Unitarian Universalist Association.

Other refs: the shorter AP article from the Spokane Spokesman-Review doesn't add much. The Chicago Tribune article does a good job of covering the theological issues but is not about this organization. danielharper.org is a blog.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., thank you @Eastmain! A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches after closer reading of the AP article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Siroxo
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Gadsden Tiems	~ Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	AP	Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	✘ No
Bangor Daily News		AP	Entirety of coverage consists of "a group calling the church to return to its theological roots"	✘ No
Spokesman-Review	~ Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	AP	Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	✘ No
Chicago Tribune	In paper's voice	Chicago Tribune	~ Discusses formation and a single belief, with short statement from from group president	~ Partial
Yet Another Unitarian Universalist	Cites this Wikipedia article	Personal blog		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment It appears that editor @Siroxo: has made a source analysis table that shows that there is no valid sourcing on the article, but not actually made a comment or a !vote in support of the table entry. Bit odd I think, but I guess its ok, as the intent is there. scope_creep^Talk 16:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to leave a comment but got caught up making the table. Merge seems appropriate. —siro χ o 22:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is the SECOND "Final relist". I should not have relisted this discussion again. However, I don't know how to revert a relisting so I'll just apologize and promise not to let this happen again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even after considering new sources, the article does not have reasonable enough sources. Merging the article could happen as suggested (really it seems as though a number of Unitarian stubs could be combined into a singular article about Unitarian conferences/groups/organisations but that feels a but a bit off topic).

I think the article would need a significant amount of information added by new sources to be a constructive addition. Pedantical (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would need to pass NCORP and it doesn't even approach it. I agree with Siroxo's source analysis. I don't think that there is meaningful content to be merged. List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches does not mention this topic so a redirect would make sense only after the fact, i.e. after someone has hypothetically added it to the list, but it's questionable if it should be included in the list in the first place, when considering WP:CSC -- considering this AfD, as this is now provenly a non-notable organization, and if the list is a CSC-type-1 list (every member notable or a promising red link), which appears to be the case, it should not be included in the list. Therefore the article should not be redirected. Or merged. It should be deleted.—Alalch E. 08:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to International Seed Testing Association. History is under the redirect if a merger is desired. Star Mississippi 02:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keshavulu Kunusoth

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

Nominating for smarter folks than I to decide the merits. Seems highly self-promotional, so possibly qualifies as G11. Possible also UPE. Maybe enough issues to be returned to draftspace and not clutter main article space. UtherSRG (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. UtherSRG (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hey UtherSRG! Thanks for the feedback, would love to know which parts of the article seem self-promotional and/or not following Wikipedia's guidelines, so that I can help make the article meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Your guidance is much appreciated. Thanks for considering. SuccessfulEditor (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — SuccessfulEditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I did a Google search and the subject seems notable. The main problems with this article (cluttered and the citations definently need work) can be fixed, and I would be willing to do that if the article is kept. History person 2 (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My search results do not reveal anything substantial but I'd support draftying if there is someone willing to work on the article in draftspace. Fwiw, we shouldn't tolerate articles with promotional tone. They don't serve any encyclopedic purpose. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've done a bit of research and the subject does seem a bit notable, willing to improve the article and add a few more references if kept. Srinivas3108 (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC) — Srinivas3108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from experienced editors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the entire arguments of this AfD is disputed. CastJared (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International Seed Testing Association as an WP:ATD - Very little of the discussion so far has focused on specifics. Obviously, the vast majority of the CV/promotional stuff needs to be removed, but I'm just interested in notability. I don't see that he qualifies for WP:NPROF, despite his published research (about 200 citations on Scopus). He is the focus of an article in the Telangana Today (1), with an additional mention (2). I also found this interview. To me, this looks like it narrowly misses WP:GNG, so I recommend deletion. A suitable merge target is available as an alternative to deletion. Suriname0 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Binn (serialization format)

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

Non-notable serialization format. Article created by the developer himself. Frap (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, unsourced, not notable, self-promo. Artem.G (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and therefore doesn’t meet GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Khani

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

Fails WP:GNG, I couldn't find any reliable sources. The BBC link, is just a list of music, where he is breifly mentioned. The article was proposed for deletion on June 14, 2015 but the template was removed the following day. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not notable, was doubtful even in 2015. No sourcing found in my search, article appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's this, from Creative Loafing Charlotte [6], vaguely mentions the subject here remixing a song. Can't beat the website name either, I'd pick that for a wiki user name in a hearbeat. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't enough to establish notability. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my own searches are only coming up with the usual junk sources like SoundCloud. Non-notable remixer of songs Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Natural (group). ✗plicit 12:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael 'J' Horn

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

This article, recently created from a redirect, fails to cite reliable sources, and publishes what may be contentious material. Furthermore the subject may fail WP:GNG as an individual. I recommend as an alternative to deletion restoring the redirect to Natural (group) (which itself is tagged for verifiability). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Florida. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Natural (group), which was working just fine. WP:BANDMEMBER. 162 etc. (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is also fine in this case. Non-notable except in context of the band. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Natural (group) as no evidence of notability outside the band, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Paynes. or an appropriate subsection thereof. Star Mississippi 01:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Waiting Game (The Paynes)

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

Article is plot and cast list and has no additional value then what is presented at The Paynes#Episodes. Since the article's creator had created several of these, I believe it's better to bring it here than convert all to drafts and risk an edit war. If deleted, then make this a redirect to the episode table. Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to The Paynes. Gothamk (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Paynes#Episodes per nom. Article is indeed in a very poor shape, but would surely be useful as a redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shah Kamal Quhafah. ✗plicit 04:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Tajuddin

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

Very few references, and most of those references only mention his name in a list of other hundreds of disciples. No sign of independent notability. Jaunpurzada (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. -- Jaunpurzada (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shah Kamal Quhafah, as the subject is mentioned there. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 05:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shah Kamal Quhafah per Ficaia. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shah Kamal Quhafah .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abolhasan Farhoudi

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

Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. Also fails WP:PROF. I would reconsider if anyone can find sources in Persian. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I can find in Farsi is 1 and 2 which isn’t enough to keep the article. Mccapra (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources insufficient at this time. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Valley Public School

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. No GNG-level sources were surfaced by the minimum searches mentioned in WP:CONRED. A previous PROD was self-reverted. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tamil Nadu. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced stub article with no evidence of passing WP:GNG. I didn't find anything either during a quick before search. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources in 10 years, and no indication of notability. Also fails WP:NSCHOOL greyzxq ^talk 22:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Ballet Shoes (novel). ✗plicit 06:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Fossil

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

~~Character content fork from Ballet Shoes (novel). No reason for this to be a standalone article Gugrak (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nominator. It does look like a content fork. CastJared (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nom and CastJared. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Next to no referenced content to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ballet Shoes (novel) as the content is unsourced. ✗plicit 06:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petrova Fossil

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

Unsourced content fork from Ballet Shoes (novel). No reason for this to be a standalone article Gugrak (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nominator. It does not cite any sources. CastJared (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nom and CastJared. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No referenced content to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ballet Shoes (novel) as the content is unsourced. ✗plicit 06:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posy Fossil

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

~~Unsourced content fork from Ballet Shoes (novel). No reason for this to be a standalone article Gugrak (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nominator. It does not cite any sources. CastJared (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ballet Shoes (novel) per nom and CastJared. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No referenced content to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 01:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Anastasia

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

Requesting to move for draft as mainspace not submitted for review. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Mexico. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can only find routine coverage. Article is promotional anyways. At the very least, a major cleanup would be necessary. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AfC is not mandatory, so this isn't a valid deletion rationale. pburka (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, give the new page patrol time to do their job. YesI'mOnFire, in explanation, if you hadn't nominated this for AfD only a few hours after it was submitted to main-space, the new page patrol would have found it and sent it back to draft space. Articles may be submitted directly to main-space by their original authors, that's allowed, but we have a well-organised and careful mechanism to screen articles, see Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol. But having said all that, this is at best a drastically-inadequately sourced article. Elemimele (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as Elemimele suggested. Bruxton (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Gowra

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

Aryan Gowra does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Clearly he's at the beginning of a career that might one day establish his notability, but he's not there yet. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, not a notable actor as he has only been in two films greyzxq ^talk 15:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Canning Studios

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

The article is largely promotional material written by an employee of the company. The majority of the information comes from the company itself. A few other sources are cited, but only the WSJ and Times Leader article mention the company at all. Both do so only in passing. The article does not appear to meet the standards for notability. Owunsch (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, Scotland, and Connecticut. Skynxnex (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:COI, and nom. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project Colored Mountains (video game)

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

Not finding anything other than basic listings that do not contribute to notability. None of the four sources in the article contribute to notability. Pretty clear case of when to draftify, but that's been done and the creator immediately moved it back to mainspace, so another unilateral draftify would be a poor idea. (The creator has a declared COI.) I think the only option left is an AFD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator ignored the rejections of their draft - twice - and recreated this clearly promotional article. Wikipedia is not for spamming with whatever new game you made, WP:GNG is clearly failed here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it promotional? Cjamsla511 (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: It doesn't pass GNG. The creator evaded the rejections of the draft twice. CastJared (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believed that Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia while creating this, and I assumed that anyone could make an article on anything. Apparently that isn’t the case. I’m not sure why you can’t make an article if you are even slightly related to the subject that it’s on. This article was written knowing that it would be updated when the game was released, and due to the nature of the project (indie 3d platformer) it was near-impossible to get any major sources to cover the game. Unfortunately, I can’t not make a Wikipedia page because then Google results and YouTube gaming wouldn’t show my game, it would show a mountain in Colorado or just the word Roblox. I’m not using or attempting to use this article for promotion, but I need it to use other methods of promotion. If anyone would be willing to try to remove and rewrite whatever I did wrong, that would be less devastating to this project than deleting it and much appreciated.

TL;DR not sure what I did wrong other than write an article about a topic I liked but if someone or multiple people could help fix it instead of deleting it, that would be much appreciated

Cjamsla511 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. That doesn't mean anything and everything can be included. You may want to read WP:NOT for more insight.

You can make an article if you're related, and people have done it, but it's much harder to be neutral and objective, especially when you get benefits if the article exists/is positive (which is your case). Also, using the Wikipedia page to generate Google and YouTube Gaming results is promotion.

We work with the sources, that's the rule. If you can't get sources to cover your game, we don't have much to work with. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zxcvbnm. Clearly the article creator hasn't worked out that Wikipedia isn't for promotion yet. 07:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment: the creator has moved the article back to draftspace. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask why all the article was was just a template or two. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 21:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability whatsoever. I've also returned the page back to mainspace and blocked the creator for advertising. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator blanked and attempted to G7 this while it was in draftspace, but at some point between then and the move back to mainspace it was restored. I don't see any reason why G7 doesn't apply here, but I could be missing something. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a question of whether the blank was done in "good faith" or as part of an attempt to evade scrutiny. Hence I think an AfD is still justified. After all, they ultimately refused to leave it as a draft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that their block appeal claims they were being "targeted" which seems to indicate they have read literally nothing in terms of notices or warnings they were given about notability, nor any of the policies, which would explain what is going on pretty clearly. They are lashing out at editors which does not indicate good faith on their part, but rather WP:NOTHERE behavior. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who knows, it may release and become notable, but for now, the sources aren't there. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upcoming game without any coverage, like at all. SWinxy (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King Fook Holdings

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

Nothing per RS and WP:GNG NortonAngo (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Selection of two sources:
  1. "Capital magazine article". Capital [zh]. 2009. Retrieved 2023-05-27 – via Google Books.
    The article notes: "景福集團六十年發展里程碑 1 o 1949 創辦人楊志雲創立位於文咸東街的景福金舖。 1959 景福金舖正式轉向珠寶、黃金,以及腕錶等三大零售業務發展,並於美麗華酒店商場開設首家分店。 1965 成立景福黃金及珠靈(九龍)有限公司。 1970 成立景福黃金及珠寶有限公司中環分店。 1971 位於中環景福大廈的景福珠寶正式開幕。 1988 景福集團有限公司( 280 )在本地主板上市。 1999 首間 Masterpiece by king fook 概念店正式於太古廣場開幕。 2000 景福珠寶(九龍)與景福珠寶(香港)合併於景福"
    From Google Translate: "Milestones of King Fook Holdings's 60-year development 1 o 1949 Founder Yang Zhiyun founded King Fook Gold Shop located on Bonham Strand. 1959 King Fook Gold Shop officially turned to the three major retail businesses of jewellery, gold, and watches, and opened its first branch in the Miramar Hotel shopping mall. 1965 Established King Fook Gold & Pearl (Kowloon) Limited. 1970 Established King Fook Gold & Jewelery Co., Ltd. Central Branch. 1971 King Fook Jewelery in Central King Fook Building officially opened. 1988 King Fook Holdings Limited (280) was listed on the local main board. 1999 The first Masterpiece by king fook concept store officially opened in Pacific Place. 2000 King Fook Jewelery (Kowloon) and King Fook Jewelery (Hong Kong) merged into King Fook ..."
  2. Hou 侯, Weimin 维敏; Hou, Shusen 侯书森 (1996). 东方之珠: 香港的旅游与购物 [Pearl of the Orient: Travel and Shopping in Hong Kong] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Federation of Literary and Art Circles. p. 379. ISBN 978-7-50-592491-8. Retrieved 2023-05-27.
    The book notes: "“景福” ,开始独立经营。初期,主要从事提炼黄金,买卖金条及黄金首饰批发业务。在他的努力下,景福的金器以成色可靠而受到顾客的信任和欢迎。随着景福业务的发展,杨志云开始多元化经营,包括旅店、房地产、电影院和建筑工程投资。景福本身的发展也呈多元化。... 随着景福业务的发展,杨志云开始多元化经营,包括旅店、房地产、电影院和建筑工程投资。 ... 1970 年,景福在港注册成立公司,注册后逐渐扩大业务,开始经营进口钻石的打磨和销售。"
    From Google Translate: "King Fook began to operate independently. In the early stage, it was mainly engaged in refining gold, buying and selling gold bars and wholesale gold jewelry. Thanks to his efforts, King Fook's gold wares are trusted by customers for their quality and reliability. With the development of King Fook's business, Yang Zhiyun began to diversify his business, including investment in hotels, real estate, cinemas and construction projects. ... In 1970, King Fook registered and established a company in Hong Kong. After registration, it gradually expanded its business and began to operate the polishing and sales of imported diamonds."
2. Additional sources:
  1. "景福集團八八至八九年度金條減銷首飾零售顯增稅後溢利八千二百萬元" [From 1988–1989, King Fook Group reduced sales of gold bars and jewelry retailing, significantly increasing profit after tax to $82 million]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1989-09-12. Retrieved 2023-05-27 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  2. 未生 (2017-02-07). "賣盤零距離？" [Selling zero distance?]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.
    The article notes: "其間有人提起景福(280)為削減成本，未來擬把中環總店外的店舖關閉。一家曾在珠寶行業佔重要地位的公司竟淪落至此，未生感唏噓，但亦有原因。回憶往事，景福起步和周大福(1929)和周生生(116)接近，創辦人楊志雲當年較周大福及周生生主事人年紀大，"
    From Google Translate: "Someone mentioned that King Fook (280) plans to close the stores outside the main store in Central in the future in order to cut costs. It is not a shame that a company that once occupied an important position in the jewelry industry has fallen to this point, but there are also reasons. Recalling the past, King Fook’s start was similar to that of Chow Tai Fook (1929) and Chow Sang Sang (116). The founder Yang Zhiyun was older than the principals of Chow Tai Fook and Chow Sang Sang at the time, ..."
  3. Ip, Stephanie (2021-10-07). "Jewellery Connoisseur Feiping Chang Walks Us Through "masterpiece by king fook"". Prestige Hong Kong. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.
    The article notes: "With seven decades of expertise in high jewellery, there’s no doubting King Fook when it comes to sourcing the most desirable jewellers to introduce to Hong Kong. ... King Fook, established in 1949, has long understood the tastes of Hong Kong and our hunger for quality and fine craftsmanship. ... Since its early days, King Fook specialised in the trade of jade, silver and gold ingot pieces, an area they still claim unparalleled expertise to this day. As their business expanded, King Fook set about discovering and curating unique jewellers around Europe to bring their unique creations to Hong Kong, satisfying its customers’ increasing desire for one-of-a-kind jewellery."
  4. McHugh, Fionnuala (1999-09-19). "New gold standards". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.
    The article notes: "Fifty years ago this week, at the mid-autumn festival of 1949, King Fook Goldsmiths opened at 5 Bonham Strand, close to the Chinese Gold & Silver Exchange Society (then in a different building, but on the same Mercer Street site where it now stands). ... King Fook soon opened up a branch in Macau, which was far-sighted because in the late '40s the Hong Kong government decided to regulate the import and export of gold. ... In the same year, 1959, King Fook diversified into the jewellery business. Naturally, it concentrated on the pure "yellow" gold, which is rarely seen in the West and is so prized in the East. ... This summer, King Fook opened a shop in Pacific Place called Masterpieces by King Fook (although the "by King Fook" label is in noticeably smaller script than "Masterpieces" on all the signage). It sells watches by such upmarket designers as Franck Muller and Audemars Piguet, and precious jewellery made in King Fook's workshops, with settings of white gold or platinum."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow King Fook Holdings (traditional Chinese: 景福集團有限公司; simplified Chinese: 景福集团有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Cunard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the multiple sources presented by Cunard...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An easy Keep per the sources provided above. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. While it is not entirely clear that WP:GNG has been satisfied by provided sources, the argument that the subject meets WP:NPOL has not been rebutted and is sufficient basis for keeping the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nazim Osmanov

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

Other than holding a parochial office in the Muborak regional Soviet Communist Party branch, nothing more even in Russian-language sources. Falls short of WP:BIO. Brandmeister^talk 07:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Brandmeister^talk 07:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, he would pass WP:NPOL, but I could not find any sources that verify this service despite a very thorough search. In fact, the only source I found was this, which does have a brief snippet of him at page 107 entry 7169, but does not mention service in the legislature. Curbon7 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the same sourcing difficulty. Significant coverage in multiple secondary sources per WP:BASIC seems to be absent, so pulling out a meaningful biography beyond stub is doubtful here. Brandmeister^talk 14:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that he was a deputy is verified by THREE obituaries about him: the one in Lenin Bayragi cited in the article, the obituary for him in Pravda Vostoka (the largest Russian language newspaper of Uzbekistan), the obituary for him in Sovet Uzbekistoni (the largest Uzbek language newspaper of Uzbekistan at the time), and having your obituary in a national newspaper is a big deal. Despite the claims of some people about being “thorough” in research looking for information that is clearly not the case because they could have easily found the obituaries I linked if only they just bothered to look in the right place, or even just bothered to read the obituary in Lenin Bayragi that the article already uses which says that he was a deputy. Sadly this problem afflicts lots of Uzbek articles…it wasn’t long ago that our most highly decorated scientist Toshmuhammad Sarimsoqov (The head of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences and recipient of the highest Soviet civil honor Hero of Socialist Labor) was shrugged off as non-notable by another non-Uzbek. So please stop assuming that there is no press on someone just because you can’t find it because there is a chronic problem with English Wikipedia editors not being able to find Uzbek media materials--Salazarov^(chat) 11:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF, and the Lenin Bayragi source is a link to a hidden VK page. This source is sufficient in demonstrating an WP:NPOL pass, so Keep. Curbon7 (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sharp Things

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

No sources with depth-of-coverage to meet WP:MUSIC; HuffPost article is a press release, others are mentions of this band with regards to them being the opening act in a few cases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BAND #5, for which I added a source. "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Bar None Records meets that criteria, and this band released two albums on that label. And I'm guessing Ropeadope Records also counts as a third album. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone else want to assess this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:BAND#5 and specifically releases on Bar None, which has acts like Alex Chilton and the Feelies in its roster.

Really no other justification for keep. The lack of sources speaks loudly for a band with this long a tenure, and although I disagree with nom that the HuffPo article is a press release, it's an interview which makes it questionable as a WP:RS. It seems Serpa himself gets more press than this band; might be easier to source as an article about him with the band as a sub-heading (but I'm not proposing or volunteering). Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per RecycledPixels' decision. CastJared (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and none appears likely to emerge with two silent relists. Star Mississippi 02:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maryanne Oketch

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

Sure, being historically the second black woman to win Survivor, the Survivor 42 winner, and one of Canadian winners of Survivor is something to rave about. However, even potentially meeting WP:GNG and/or WP:NBASIC may not override the article's noncompliance with WP:BLP1E (or WP:BIO1E) and, if applicable, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I've yet to see her being notable for anything else outside Survivor, especially by reliable sources. Must be redirected to Survivor 42. George Ho (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Germany, and Canada. George Ho (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a few more sources, there are quite a few others, that touch on her personal life. I think she passes GNG, and I think it's a stretch to say that the intention of the BLP1E policy is to keep those people who are of great interest to the public off Wikipedia. But that's just my reading of it. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify what I said before: the main issue is not her compliance with GNG but rather the article's suitability (and appropriateness) in this project. Curiously, but why else do you think Maryanne is one of people who are of great interest to the public... besides winning Survivor 42? From what I can see, the reliable source that you added doesn't verify her notability as a church employee or volunteer, despite being a fact. Rather the source emphasizes more on her winning Survivor 42. George Ho (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see the BLP1E argument, given the ongoing coverage of her win in the Canadian media, even recently. In particular there's a December 2022 Toronto Star piece on the Top 10 winners and losers of 2022, where she's listed along with household names like Tamara Lich and Kieran Moore - ProQuest 2754408882, along with an interview a couple of months ago on Entertainment Tonight where she discusses the possibility of appearing in Big Brother. As such the requirement in WP:BLP1E that "person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" is not met; see in particular the first bullet of WP:What BLP1E is not#"One dominant event". Nfitz (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto Star's top-ten winners and losers list contextually (if not merely) covers Maryanne as a Survivor winner and nothing else. Also, the ET Canada interview is more of a primary source than secondary one and may not count as verification of her (supposed) notability. Besides winning Survivor 42, how else is she more of a high-profile individual instead of a low-profile one? George Ho (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources to show that the person doesn't meet BLP1E with ongoing coverage do not need to be GNG sources. The article should have GNG sources about the subject - and it does. Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Survivor 42. Although it is well-sourced, but it definitely falls fowl of WP:BLP1E. Tommy Sheehan, another Survivor winner, was closed as delete, and the argument for BLP1E was way more marginal because he had appeared in another show for three episodes. If that was closed as delete, this should definitely also be. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Survivor 42. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearer consensus needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's additional comment - I am, honestly, not confident about arguments based on GNG and (implicitly) WP:sustained weighing over those favoring redirect, yet I bet those "keep" voters would stand by their votes. @Bgsu98: I wonder whether you can add your rationale for your vote. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No one has argued for keep since the strong source analysis. Given that, I am inclined to give less weight to the keep arguments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Jewell

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

Non-notable player, only coverage I can find is from match reports and a handful of interviews. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, and England. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough in a simple search in terms of interviews and other bits to suggest that there will be enough for a GNG pass if local and offline sources are taken into consideration also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There’s enough info out there to write a more comprehensive article, just needs major updating. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was a very established Premiership Player for a number of seasons, there must be enough sources to write a good short article on him.Skeene88 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC) EDIT: I've now substantially updated the page, I believe that easily meets the criteria to be kept now.Skeene88 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Rugby Paper newsletter is written by him N. The This is Local London source is a contributor piece written by a "young reporter", not a staff member. BLPs demand high-quality sources, amateur submissions don't cut it N. The Rugby World piece is also a contributor submission, not professional journalism N. The Bucks Free Press has less than a sentence of independent secondary coverage of Jewell, it's almost entirely quotes N. The Express is GUNREL N. BBC Sport is a routine trivial transaction announcement N. JoelleJay (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelleJay's excellent sources analysis. If it wasn't a BLP, I think the contributor pieces would have barely passed the article through WP:GNG, however it is a BLP, and we need high-quality reliable sources. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per JoelleJay's sources analysis.Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bob the Builder home video releases

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

Unsourced, WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTIINFO, it's not the job of Wikipedia to provide a comprehensive list of every single home video release that can ever be purchased. Ajf773 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Ajf773 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourced list in violation of NOTCATALOGUE. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. And, the original creator User:Suiteman has been banned indefinitely from the site - never a good sign! Godtres (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kolodziej

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

Likely to fail WP:NBIO. Not seeing significant coverage in sources independent of the subject KH-1 (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me!) 01:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think he meets the notability threshold as I fail to see significant coverage about him specifically. I went to YouTube expecting an account with a lot of followers and a high view count, but actually, he has less than 200 followers and his most popular video has 1K views. Pichpich (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanzetta Penn McPherson

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable United States magistrate judge. Per WP:USCJN#Magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges, "Magistrate judges... are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability."

The article was PRODded by Snickers2686 (myself) with the comment Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider/WP:USCJN; it was declined by 161.69.71.25 with the comment "literally first page of Google has tonnes of stuff, shared on talk page." The sources shared on article talk page don't constitute WP:RS or establish notability. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Law. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me!) 01:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We generally don't accept magistrate judges as notable, not a ton of coverage of the individual otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability guidelines and not finding anything substantive in a WP:BEFORE search on google scholar or news.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. Star Mississippi 02:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Roman Polanski Petition

AfDs for this article:

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

A split of Roman Polanski sexual abuse case#Arrest in Zurich, which already covers the reason for the petition, and the petition. This article mostly exists to contain gigantic quotes and a gigantic list of signatories. This strikes me as cruft and not encyclopedic. Without these quotes and lists, the article is only a few paragraphs. --Quiz shows 00:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly needs work, but I'd argue that a tidied up version of it is a worthwhile addition, particularly in light of later revelations about the behaviour of many in Hollywood, MeToo, etc. Perhaps some more of the text from the main article could be moved into this one? Cyclonius (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Roman Polanski sexual abuse case, include notable signatories in a collapsible list if necessary. --Pokelova (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Roman Polanski sexual abuse case, as an ATD, and include notable signatories in a collapsible list if necessary per User:Pokelova. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Roman Polanski sexual abuse case per nom. Karnataka (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Editors remain divided on whether this subject meets WP:EVENT. Editors advocating for keep pointed to the presence of coverage in a geographically wide range of sources, while editors advocating for deletion argued that the coverage is of an insufficiently WP:LASTING character. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 09:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush near Kosovska Mitrovica

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

This article has been declined at AfC twice, then moved by the AfC submitter to mainspace, then draftified by another editor, and now again moved back to mainspace. Evidently, some controversy here. I'm the second AfC reviewer; I don't think this meets WP:EVENTCRITERIA, and declined on those grounds. asilvering (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. asilvering (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging in previous reviewer @Mattdaviesfsic:, draftifier @Robert McClenon:, and the editor who moved the draft to mainspace, @Edison18273:.
Keep. Three different American newspapers chose to run a story about the ambush. The article suggests that the Račak massacre was in response to this ambush. The book reference suggests that coverage extended beyond the timeframe of the ambush. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is a case where the originator acted as if they were trying to push a non-encyclopedic article into article space. On examination of the sources (but without reading the book), I conclude that the author was trying to push an encyclopedic article into article space. Perhaps the author could have spared themselves this AFD by communicating with reviewers, but the only question for this AFD is whether the event meets event notability criteria.

Ambush near Kosovska Mitrovica

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Southeast Missourian	Associated Press account	Yes	Not really, local coverage of a national account	Yes	Yes
2	Chicago Tribune		Yes	Yes, because Chicago Tribune is a nationally important newspaper	Yes	Yes
3	Deseret News	Same Associated Press account as 1	Yes	Sort of. Coverage by multiple local or regional papers has a national quality	Yes	Yes
4	A book	As Eastmain said	Yes	Probably	Yes	Yes

The notability guideline says that national coverage is preferred over local or regional coverage. The Chicago Tribune is a nationally important newspaper. The publication of the Associated Press account (national) by at least two newspapers in different parts of the United States should count as weak national coverage. The mention in a book indicates that historians at least occasionally take note of the battle. When in doubt as to whether a battle should be covered, covering the battle seems like the right answer.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both of these arguments hang on the book being a solid reference. Can anyone get a copy of the book and see what it says there? I'm unconvinced that it's actually about the subject of the article in any significant way - it looks like it might just be about the subsequent massacre, which is undoubtedly notable (Račak massacre). This event is already mentioned there, in "background", and I don't see that this article adds much more than what is already there. -- asilvering (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I was able to retrieve the book and find the relevant passage. To answer your question, no, it doesn't actually deal with the subject of the article in any significant way. In case the page is inaccessible, it's a sub section titled "In Focus:The Racak Incident" and summarizes the lead up to NATO intervention in Kosovo, dealing with violence in the Stimlje region in particular, leading up to the Račak massacre. This is the only part where the incident is mentioned: On 8 January 1999, the KLA carried out a well-prepared ambush near Dulje (west of Stimlje) in which three Serbian policemen were killed and one was wounded.

That's the extent of it. And like you mentioned, it's already mentioned in the massacre article. --Griboski (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Griboski Thank you so much for checking in on this! -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No. My argument to keep the article is not dependent on whether the book is a solid reference, but only whether the newspapers are independent secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow - you have only 4 sources in the table, 1-3 are the same, and 4 is not significant coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the newspaper references are identical texts word for word, relaying and copying the Associated Press report, so it's really one source. It is common for local and national newspapers to publish stories from the AP. The key part from WP:EVENTCRITERIA is the event's lasting impact and depth of coverage. It had some impact, sure, in that it was one event in a long series that led to the Račak massacre. The depth of coverage is minuscule, and little to write about the event itself if we were to extrapolate the meat of the information available. Hardly enough for a stand-alone articule when it is already covered in the massacre article's background section. --Griboski (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See my comments above. --Griboski (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: But they still have multiple reliable sources. CastJared (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just the one - the AP news story. The other, the book, is not significant coverage - just one sentence. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:EVENT. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. The three newspaper articles are all dated the day after the ambush. Nothing much since. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG a small skirmish, briefly reported, with no WP:LASTING impact. Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to agree, it was a brief incident, reported on at the time. No lasting coverage in the news cycle. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:N. The incident has no notability and isn't apart of a wider offensive. The "Aftermath" section takes up a significant part of the article and isn't even related to this incident at all. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the sources as demonstrated by Robert McClenon are WP:RS, the article needs some work with the aftermath section. Durraz0 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read WP:N and the article meets it. I found a source regarding the aftermath.^[1] This is indeed a significant event in the Kosovo war, and I can recall having read about it in books about the war, i can try to find these sources later. KleovoulosT (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can find all of the significant coverage in the world, but if it's all from directly after the event, then it's not WP:SUSTAINED coverage and therefore the subject is not notable. There's also nothing here worth merging into Račak massacre, and it's already mentioned at Timeline of the Kosovo War, which is probably the most appropriate place for a non-notable event like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Melissa Eddy (January 24, 1999). "Freed Albanians Ready to Fight". Associated Press.

Comment -- The sources (which all seem to be American ones) establish that the event happened. The question is whether it is a notable event. Since it happened in Europe, I would have expected there to be European sources cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[AP1-1] Melissa Eddy (January 24, 1999). "Freed Albanians Ready to Fight". Associated Press.

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witches (Discworld)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nac Mac Feegle (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maguffin}}