Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 16	May 18 >

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 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 Sources are very outdated and this person is really non relevant.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, [1], 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 no consensus‎. Only 1 !vote. Relisting twice only produced a comment. (non-admin closure) 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damn It Ani Barach Kahi

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

Book fails WP:GNG, almost no critical reception, all source book launch info AShiv1212 (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Maharashtra. AShiv1212 (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need to wait for more reviews. Orientls (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reviews look arguably OK as they are right now; the article has been updated somewhat since nominated for deletion. Merge to Mahesh Kothare is a sensible ATD since this is an autobiography, if we're not going to keep it standalone... but again, that's difficult to evaluate. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 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 keep‎. – Joe (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Siegele

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

Fails WP:BIO. The links provided do not meet WP:SIGCOV. One of the cited sources from ABC Australia might have been SIGCOV but it's a dead link. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the link is archived here. That said, Redirect to Ratbag Games. Not independently notable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sigcov in these sources:

The Advertiser (not the most reliable name, I know): [2][3] [4] and many more.

Weekend Australian: [5]

The Sydney Morning Herald: [6]

The Sunday Mail: [7] (more about his company securing a contract)

He also has dozens of passing mentions or minor quotes in news articles regarding his company RatBag. I think all these combined establish notability. Merko (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Merko Jack4576 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources Merko found; passes WP:BASIC. Also found a book source that dedicates a chapter to him and how he formed Ratbag Games. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:05, 21 May 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 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Fernando (Prophet)

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

It appears to be largely promotional in nature and lacks independent sources to prove the claims made. The bulk of the information is sourced from Fernando's own website, which is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. BoraVoro (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO - appears to have gained some notoriety based on a single event - can't see there being any long-term notability (smacks of WP:SELFPROMOTION). Dan arndt (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and for lack of WP:SIGCOV. There are zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a run-of-the-mill pastor, who has caused one controversy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 22 May 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. – Joe (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monson High School

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

only sources are databases for the infobox. a search for sources only turns up some sources about some emergency there and some people who teach there. lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Massachusetts. lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- this article is well referenced with independent sources. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 19 May 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 Devlin discography. – Joe (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

50 Grand

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

Fails GNG. Sources in the article and BEFORE are promos or primary. No objection to a redirect to Devlin discography; there is no properly sourced material for a merge beyond basic facts. // Timothy :: talk 05:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devlin discography#As lead artist as {{R from song}} per WP:ATD. ✗plicit 06:27, 24 May 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. – Joe (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remote (band)

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

Unsourced article. While both of the members seem to be notable, I can't find any significant coverage of the band. Previously deprod, but the user who deprod it did not add any source as well. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what little can be salvaged into Roger Eno. The notability of Miromusic looks very questionable too. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Brian Eno: Fails WP:NBAND. Criteria 1: I cannot find any reliable sources reviewing the band or its album. Criteria 6: Miromusic does not appear to be independently notable (that article should probably be PRODed). None of the other criteria apply. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NBAND. Brian Eno is obviously notable. Miro is also notable under criterion 2 of NBAND because they've had at least one song chart in the UK. Thus, Remote meets criterion 6 of NBAND. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 21 May 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. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth free trade

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

This article is about a vague topic with limited value, furthermore has been poorly cited for a over a decade. This has led to various misinformation occuring through out the article. In turn, the majority of properly sourced information is spoken about on their own dedicated pages without an explanation for their relevance to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevoLake (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Imperial Preference" it was a thing at one time to have free trade among members of the British Empire, but as the empire has faded, free-trade has evolved. Being in the Commonwealth isn't such as an important factor for Canada for instance as being part of the Empire was for trade. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it has disapeared or evolved doesn't make this unimoportant PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Article is well referenced & we have learned about this in school. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having learned about it in school is not really a valid reason for this instance. But it is fair game for WP:NBOOK. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

◆Comment-

Added these books to the see also section & cited them in the article:

The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection^[1]

Free Trade Reimagined: The World Division of Labor and the Method of Economics^[2]

Free Trade^[3]

Free Trade and Prosperity: How Openness Helps the Developing Countries Grow Richer and Combat Poverty^[4] PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just heard this concept talked about on the Indicator podcast from NPR, plus the article is well sourced. What's the Commonwealth good for? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
added the podcast above to "see also" section and cited it with the link you provided above. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Roberts, Russell D. (2007). The choice: a fable of free trade and protectionism (3 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-143354-0.
^ Unger, Roberto Mangabeira (2007). Free trade reimagined: the world division of labor and the method of economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-14588-4.
^ Hanson, Ann Aubrey; Zott, Lynn Marie, eds. (2013). Free trade. Opposing viewpoints series. Farmington Hills, Mich: Greenhaven Press. ISBN 978-0-7377-6055-2.
^ Panagariya, Arvind (2019). Free trade and prosperity: how openness helps developing countries grow richer and combat poverty. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-091449-3.

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 04:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Purdy

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

Author of one book that doesn't seem to have been very successful. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Schierbecker (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 17 May 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 04:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup All-Time Team

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

No evidence of this list being particularly notable. It doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, either. It's just a team posted by FIFA in 1994, does not merit an article for me. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is very basic with not much notability. Much work would be needed to improve. Article also lacks context, and could have been made up for all I know. Sources are very few and the whole thing looks very unprofessional. Pablothepenguin (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Pablothepenguin - This is not made up unless you are accusing RSSSF of faking information - https://www.rsssf.org/miscellaneous/wrldallt.html. You probably should withdraw the nomination since you did not look through the sources before nominating. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You have to look in multiple languages for this article. While we might call this the FIFA World Cup All-Time Team, it's also known as the "Equipo Histórico de la Copa Mundial FIFA", the "Tim Sepanjang Masa Piala Dunia FIFA", the "Seleção de Todos os Tempos da Copa do Mundo FIFA" and the "ဖီဖာ သမိုင်းတစ်လျှောက်အသင်း", amongst other names in every other language. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Content could be merged to FIFA World Cup, History of the FIFA World Cup or FIFA World Cup records and statistics if appropriate. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:07, 18 May 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. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Diamond

AfDs for this article:

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

This article about a novelist is poorly sourced; I have carried out WP:BEFORE and have not been able to find any coverage to add. It has been to AfD before, in 2006 (keep) and 2010 (no consensus). It has been tagged as needing more citations since 2010. Tacyarg (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mainly per the comment by DGG in the previous AFD in 2010. Someone with access to a good library should follow up with reviews of this published author and improve the article if possible, but would appear to satisfy the requirement of multiple independent reviews. Andre🚐 02:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Graham Diamond's publishing career began in the late 1970s, meaning many of the reviews and coverage that prove his notability are not easily available online. However, I discovered that he was a best-selling author in the early 1980s, with more than a million copies of his books in print. As for citations to prove this, the Wikipedia Library has reviews of novels Samarkand and The Beasts of Hades from, respectively, 1980 and 1981 issues of Library Journal. He's in Contemporary Authors along with having a detailed entry in St. James Guide to Fantasy Writers by David Pringle, released by St. James Press (a division of Gale) in 1996 and an entry in A Reader's Guide to Fantasy by Baird Searles and Beth Meacham, released in 1982 by Avon. In addition, I also found a good bit of coverage of him over the years in various issues of Science Fiction Chronicle and other magazines, including a two-page profile from a 1984 issue of Editor and Publisher. I've now cleaned up the article some and also added many of these sources. Based on all this, I believe he meets Wikipedia's notability standards for creative professionals. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My books have been constantly in print. In more recent years, Venture and Endeavour Press UK. Now Lume Books, UK and CANELO, UK, have new editions of MAYBE YOU WILL SURVIVE out. The Holocaust true seller has over 1,700 4 and 5 star reviews on Amazon, available at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and Israel. It was contracted by a publisher in the Czech Republic and is now in print in Czech.

BLACK MIDNIGHT, a terrorist thriller published by Kensington/Zebra in the US, and is now available from Lume, UK. A softcover is available from Lion in New York.

Jerelle Kraus, author of the Truth of the NY TIMES, hailed my work on LinkedIn. Editor/writer Susan Shwartz also hailed my work and invited me into an anthology.

I have more proven work than most authors today.

A brand new novel DINER OF LOST SOULS book 2 is coming out in a few weeks. With well over a million softcover books in print I think I deserve to remain listed.

thank you,

Graham Diamond, New York 69.126.139.196 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 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 02:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Galaxy Explorers

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

Fails WP:GNG. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Spaceflight. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PROMO. Gsearch goes straight to their website and social media. GNews only has hits on Star Trek items. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 17 May 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 02:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inri Manzo

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about semi-pro footballer who played 51 minutes of football in the first stage of the Copa MX back in 2016, which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. An AfD in 2017 resulted in no consensus despite GNG failure under a presumption that because he was a young player, he would play enough to satisfy the deprecated NFOOTBALL in the future. Well, he's only played as a semi-pro since, and the coverage hasn't really improved (Los Pleyers and e-Consulta are the best sources I could find, but they are not in-depth coverage). Jogurney (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks sources where the subject is covered in-depth instead of just mentioned as part of a name list. Does not appear notable enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything better than the sources that Jogurney has found Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 20 May 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. No comments after final relist. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government Junior College, Gubbi

(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) 01:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Given that this school is in a fairly remote area I would expect this school to have exactly zero coverage. However, based on a quick Google search, there are a few sources (Indian Express and Deccan Herald) that mention the school hosting political rallies and speeches from prominent politicians. I think this points to the fact that the school is probably well known and/or notable in the local region and there could be some Kannada (local language) sources for the school. -- Sohom Datta (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my own searches could not find indepth wide coverage. The 2 sources identified above by Sohom Datta are not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion would certainly benefit from more input in hopes of encouraging a consensus to form. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Chiryoku

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

Unable to find sources to support notability. I posted the following review on the article's talk page:

Taking a look at the Chinese version of the article did not reveal relevant sources.

Google Books has a text that is a set of articles written by a Korean music columnist in which Chiryoku is mentioned a couple of times, but not on pages available in preview ... and the text is in Korean, making it rather less accessible.

There appears to be no content in...

Internet Archive (texts as opposed to web)
Newspapers.com
the Gale subsets 'gale ebooks', 'general onefile', 'news', 'the times digital archive'
NewspaperArchive

An internet search via DuckDuckGo revealed many references, none of which could be considered reliable sources.

There are potentially South East Asian sources that contain reference to this artist, but I do not have much comprehension or access to those.

User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've got these passing mentions, and a questionable and likely unreliable source regarding the artist, which, of course, don't have significant coverage of Chiryoku and thus do not count towards passing GNG. Don't see anything else and the nom states nothing else across other sources. And by the way, Ceyockey, if I'm not mistaken, you don't need to translate the subject's name to Malaysian (which apparently according to Google was one of the main languages in Singapore)–it's still written in it's original subject's name! Just need to Google up "Eric Chiryoku Singapore"! Tails Wx 02:48, 17 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 01:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:53, 24 May 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 Actionslacks. PROD contested so ineligible for soft deletion, but no one including the editor who contested the PROD is contesting the redirect. Star Mississippi 16:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too Bright, Just Right, Good Night

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

PROD was removed (though the editor who removed it has "no objection to redirect" so take that as you will) but I still don't see notability here. As I said in my PROD, the only source in this article which is primarily about this album is from AllMusic. That alone does not provide for GNG, and I don't see anything here that would evidence an NALBUM pass either. Redirect to Actionslacks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:53, 24 May 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 Germany–New Zealand relations. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of New Zealand, Berlin

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

Embassies are not inherently notable. There is no significant third party coverage to meet WP:ORG or GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Germany, and New Zealand. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Well, there's a lot more that the article could say. The German article, for example, explores the relationship between New Zealand and East Germany (and although Berlin was the capital of East Germany, although the New Zealand ambassador was based in Vienna). There'd be many German language sources covering the situation from 1953 onwards, most of which are unfortunately not online. The situation is better for East German sources, and here's the announcement that diplomatic relations between East Germany and New Zealand started on 31 May 1974. Schwede 66 02:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would that additional information be better placed in Germany–New Zealand relations? LibStar (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Merge into Germany-New Zealand relations makes sense NealeWellington (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, a lot of embassies are notable, this one just doesn't show it. I think merging to Germany–New Zealand relations is a fine editorial decision at the moment, but I would not want this AfD to be used to argue that we should never have a standalone article. —Kusma (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 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!) 00:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but preserve - This should probably be listified somewhere, honestly. There's not enough SIGCOV on the building for a stand-alone article, meaning it shouldn't be a stand-alone, and we already have Germany–New Zealand relations. Problem is I'm not sure there's any good place to merge or redirect to? SportingFlyer T·C 18:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm very happy with a merge. I just don't think there's enough for a standalone article right now. SportingFlyer T·C 18:04, 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 01:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tan D. Nguyen

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

The article states that Tan D. Nguyen is a congressional candidate. It also mentions his conviction for voter intimidation. Congressional candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. However, nothing is so distinct about his candidacy that he himself warrants an article. It is otherwise run of the mill coverage of candidacies that do not rise to the level of candidates like Christine O'Donnell or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson). The other is his conviction. Notability as it relates to crime and criminals states that "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The information on his conviction can be merged into the 2006 election's article. Mpen320 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual, not meeting notability for politics; what's left is the "crime", which seems rather minor. There is more focus in the article about his transgressions rather than him as a person, this is perhaps some sort of attack article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win, but this neither demonstrates any preexisting notability for other reasons nor evinces a reason why his candidacy should be treated as a special case of greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While there were a fair amount of eloquent (LLMoquent?) comments in favor of keeping the article, none of them were the slightest bit based in actual policy. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FLO Vitamins

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

Not seeing any truly independent coverage for this product. Sourced to interviews, advertorials and PR Newswire pieces. KH-1 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Products. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very PROMO. Sources I find are all PR, except for this interview/advertorial with the founder [8], which is not much. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've researched and consider it can be kept per the general notability as it is the world’s first-ever PMS gummy vitamin per Fortune. Additionally, both the innovative approach in developing this vitamin and its subsequent influence on the dietary supplement market contribute to its significance, thereby justifying its presence as an article on Wikipedia. --BoraVoro (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources that discuss this, otherwise this is unsourced product talk. Oaktree b (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a high public interest—the product was used by public figures like Haley Lu Richardson, Molly Sims, Charlotte Mckinney and was recognized by obstetrics and gynaecology medical experts . As the women's health stuff it looks significant enough.Rodgers V (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't contribute to notability. We need discussion is scientific journals if it has been so studied. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hmmm... A good few are interviews, but those focus more on Bitton and the company rather than this product. There were also two press releases, and those are primary sources. I guess Beauty Independent appears to be reliable, as the strongest, but a high bar is required for medical claims. SWinxy (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article written from a neutral point of view, representing proportionately, and without bias. All of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The vitamins have significant interest to the public. In particular, this is presented in this and this articles. Of course, the article still needs to be improved and finalized. But at this stage, it looks good enough to be left for improvement. --Loewstisch (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks to me very much like what AI would write, rather than a human editor. Can someone put this through one of those checker thingies? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have my doubts about the Beauty Independent. The article is categorised as a "Brand Report" which is essentially an advertorial-style piece. While the content is unique, the title/angle suggests that it's based on the company's press release. The Bloomberg piece only mentions the product in passing: "O Positiv offers a strawberry gummy with chasteberry, the herb dong quai, vitamin B6, and lemon balm ($27) for PMS-related cramps, acne, and mood swings." -KH-1 (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem PR-ish, almost like and advertorial. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sources in the article are as described by the nominator, and I can find nothing better. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deathworx

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

Lacks reliable sourcing, and none can be found on Google. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 00:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 00:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources of any kind found in Gsearch, the band is not found on the internet in any sort of RS. Not meeting music notability guidelines, no charted singles, no Grammy or other awards, not much of anything really for them. Oaktree b (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some sources now present. Reliability of varying quality. Add half a dozen more independent sources and the article could be much improved. Pablothepenguin (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but I see no new sources added, Pablo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any usable sources, fails WP:NBAND.-KH-1 (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The good news: Spotify lists Deathworx, and its founder Grayson Rupp. The bad news: Deathworx is shown as having 1 monthly listener; Rupp is shown as having 0. This does not favor a finding of notability. – .Raven ^.talk 03:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A complete failure of WP:NBAND. There are no valid sources in the article, and searches turn up absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 03:48, 24 May 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.

[1] Roberts, Russell D. (2007). The choice: a fable of free trade and protectionism (3 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-143354-0.

[2] Unger, Roberto Mangabeira (2007). Free trade reimagined: the world division of labor and the method of economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-14588-4.

[3] Hanson, Ann Aubrey; Zott, Lynn Marie, eds. (2013). Free trade. Opposing viewpoints series. Farmington Hills, Mich: Greenhaven Press. ISBN 978-0-7377-6055-2.

[4] Panagariya, Arvind (2019). Free trade and prosperity: how openness helps developing countries grow richer and combat poverty. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-091449-3.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]