Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 13	February 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Purification (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

A movie that does not appear to actually pass the WP:GNG. It was nominated for deletion back in 2015, but kept due to the argument that the sources found during that AFD (which are now in the article itself) were enough to establish notability. However, actually looking at the sources shows that this is not the case. The Bloody Disgusting and "Dread Central" sources are simply postings of the film's trailer, with no actual coverage or discussion of the film. There are two reviews also listed here, and while I am not sure whether or not Ain't It Cool News is considered a reliable source for movie reviews currently, the Technorati source is most certainly not, as Technorati is an advertising platform, and that "review" is very obviously a poorly written promotional piece. Rotten Tomatoes lists zero professional review for the film, and my own searches did not turn up any significant coverage or reviews in reliable sources. In short, I don't believe this film actually does pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, and it should be brought back to AFD for a re-evaluation. Rorshacma (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. My findings are basically the same. The production section is only primary sources, which means no third party outlets wrote about this film. The critical reception is poor and almost nonexistent other than possibly a pay-to-review sites. The page claims to have had a limited release, but that's disputable. Also, not a single cast/crew/company involved in this film has a Wikipedia page (that should say something). Fails WP:NFILM. Mike Allen 20:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 21:45, 18 February 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!} 22:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rendezvous Society

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

Fails WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a local charity without sufficient notability to meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth sources fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:13, 21 February 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 Junior Hockey League. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hackettstown Harleys

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

Non-notable junior sports team that lacks the in-depth coverage in reliable and verifiable sources sources needed to meet WP:GNG. WP:NTEAM does not set any standard for such teams and defers to the general notability standard. No additional sources to establish notability found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Junior Hockey League - no evidence of independent notability, does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Junior Hockey League fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:37, 21 February 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. I see a consensus to Keep, especially after article improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ateny Wek Ateny

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

I'm not seeing sufficient notability here. No none-routine coverage while he held the press secretary position (not an inherently notable office in itself); all coverage is about him being sacked, for which we get 4x the same press release, one hit piece, and an interview denying said hit piece. Nice gossip but encyclopedic it ain't. (Previously deleted by PROD two years ago, at which point coverage would have been essentially zero) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete press secretary isn't notable, the rest is gossipy spam stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strictly speaking there have been several national press articles which have profiled the subject and in my opinion meet the GNG. That said, there are things in the article that need immediate attention which I'm going to tidy now. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the non-trivial coverage. Bruxton (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 19:00, 7 February 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!} 20:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His Press Secretary career made the news, so did his appointment and his dismissal, there is multiple significant coverage. I added it in. CT55555(talk) 21:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on what I can see in the sources, coverage here is non-trivial and the subject satisfies WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:06, 21 February 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Simmons

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

I created this article, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I consequently no longer believe that there is anything noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career to necessitate its own article. Uhooep (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As holder of the CVO, he meets the bar of WP:ANYBIO #1. We have always considered anyone who holds a CBE or above to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked through all of the pages for the CVO and didn't find this person's name. Unfortunately the royal web site is not making the transition from Elizabeth to Charles gracefully, and the information seems to have disappeared from there. Can anyone give a citation that proves the claim? Lamona (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I also find nothing on Google, and only one name check on The Guardian. That is, however, the extent of my access to UK news. Lamona (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weirdly, I can't find his CVO citation on the London Gazette website where it should be. But it is on his Who's Who entry. He presumably got it during the Queen's state visit to Slovenia in 2008. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - He's also listed as having the CVO here. I think we can probably say that he does have it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think that we can use http://www.gulabin.com/ as a source of truth - it seems to be a single person's website ("Colin Mackie's website") and doesn't say how it fact checks its information. I would tend to believe the London Gazette over Who's Who - which may get its information directly from the "who" that it is "who-ing." I'm going to go with Delete, also because there are no sources that we've turned up so far that would provide sufficient biographical information for an article. Lamona (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 14 February 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. I'm closing this as No consensus. A move discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foxy Digitalis

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

Online music magazine fails per WP:NCORP and WP:WEBCRIT. Primary references, trivial coverage in fellow magazines, no indication of notability in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, Websites, and Oklahoma. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which references you're referring too. If you look you can clearly see they've received feature coverage in several notable sources, not just "fellow magazines". Bugfingers (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we'd consider Aquarium Drunkard a RS. The NYTimes only mentions the site in passing, rest are about the same. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Pitchfork? The Wire? Bugfingers (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its a music related blog but, off course not reliable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you can check this list of reliable sources for music related articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources

Pitchfork and The Wire are both listed here, both sites which have featured Foxy Digitalis beyond a passing mention. KEEP Bugfingers (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to an article on Brad Rose or Digitalis Records. Much of the discussion above is factually incorrect. Pitchfork, for instance, is published by Condé Nast, The Wire is a major British music magazine (print and digital). Unambiguously reliable. That said, there is much more significant coverage of founder Brad Rose as a musician (brief search: one review, Irish magazine feature) or of his label (e.g., Resident Advisor feature, and less about the zine itself. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and consider your decision in light of the suggestion to retitle and refocus the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep or Move: This article probably needs some work, but I think there's enough coverage per others comments above. I'd also support the above move suggestion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Duro (footballer)

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

Aldo Duro (linguist) is notable but I can't find anything about the footballer of this name. I have searched Google News, ProQuest, Google Images and DDG but not found any decent coverage. There is database coverage in places like Transfermarkt and Football Database but this is totally insufficient for WP:SPORTBASIC. If this is deleted, the linguist should be moved to Aldo Duro over the dab page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes based on the sources; there was a series of bad edits in 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Aldo_Duro_%28footballer%29&diff=561552949&oldid=532061225) that hadn't been fully corrected; the Arabic versions of the article are based on the English and still need correcting. There's possibly something at https://www.pressreader.com/albania/panorama-sport-albania/20200110/281938839854044 but I'm not sure how much. Other than that, only databases and squads, and one or two news articles where he is mentioned but not the subject of coverage. Aldo Duro (linguist) is the primary topic and can be moved whether this is deleted or not. Peter James (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't tell for certain but looks like it might just be a quote from Duro in that Panorama article. The title of the article is Duro: Besa, the ace of all Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about the footballer Duro fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:11, 20 February 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Grabova

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

Despite playing in more than a handful of professional games, I was unable to locate any significant coverage. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG based on what I was able to find. My searches only brought up database sites like Football Database and BeSoccer, which do not confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this Albanian newspaper talked about him on Page 21. Mwiqdoh (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like only a single trivial match report mention in the bottom right corner. Please correct me if I'm wrong - I tried to use the search function in PDF but it was faulty. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 21:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 21 February 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 Rakesh Asthana. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Dhawan

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

Mainly mentions or unreliable sources. Even a WP:BEFORE was unable to locate more in-depth sourcing. CNMall41 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A practicing dentist, with some minimal press coverage. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rakesh Asthana as BLP1E. There's a paragraph about ongoing allegations and accusations. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The person who moved this from AfC is now blocked as a sockpuppet. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rakesh Asthana: Regrettable acceptance at AFC by a sockpuppet, See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harttyny. BLP1E issues 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rakesh Asthana: Not convinced that his abduction is enough to satisfy WP:NCRIME. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rakesh Asthana - This title is more fitting given the BLP1E -- Dane ^talk 21:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rakesh Asthana.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as BLP1E. Nothing in this article needs to be merged into the destination. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an AtD. Not enough notability for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 21 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Revolution EV

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

WP:TOOSOON, only one of the sources is independent (TechCrunch). The rest are all WP:SPS. Was draftified and then undraftified. A search for sources doesn't really show much. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More independent sources have been added, they were not very hard to find. If a search didn't turn up much, why not just ask or otherwise voice how the writer (as someone new to Wikipedia) can improve their article, rather than mark an article for deletion that someone put a good amount of their free time into solely out of their passion for the topic? Ashquacks (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would've asked for it to be draftified however since it was draftified and recreated in mainspace I have to go through the deletion process. Wish I didn't have to but oh well. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being not familiar as I am a Wikipedia newcomer. By draft I am guessing you are referring to the test writing in sandbox that was created to actually familiarize myself with how the Wikipedia editor works. However, I was unable to find anything in the deletion process primers that mentions draft articles or their recreation. Ashquacks (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I mean draftspace. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NEXIST. Plenty of WP:SIGCOV and a legitimate WP:SPINOFF of Ram pickup, a long article itself. Not sure how this could have been nominated. Perhaps the search was limed to "Ram Revolution EV"? Just throwing an option. These things happen and I'm curious to hear more! Try this search instead. Also, please rename to Ram 1500 REV or Ram Revolution.
I nominated it because the article is clearly not ready for mainspace and since it was already draftified I couldn't drafitfy it again and had to go through AFD. I agree that this is notable, but the article isn't notable as is. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps explain why the article is not ready for the main space in your opinion? Specifically, how could the article be not notable given the vast amounts of significant coverage? gidonb (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HUh. It seems to be better now. this was the version I saw. Only 1 of the sources was independent from the subject. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but you describe a reference bias (versus concentrating on sources). Per WP:NEXIST Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The bold comes from the guideline, so we will not miss this! So, given the improvements that you observed, are you withdrawing the nomination? Your other nomination looks better. I'll get to that soon! gidonb (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm going to withdraw this nom. And I know about notability, however the article was in no condition to remain in mainspace when I got to it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:32, 18 February 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. Despite my sympathy for Rhododendrites' reasoning, it is obvious that the consensus here is for "keep". Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City Bus Simulator

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

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (video games). The reviews from mobygame are considered unreliable from this, and the 2 sources mentioned in the article are either deleted or unreliable. I went on the wayback machine and tried to find the page for the german article, but the archive only went as far back as 2013. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 18:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 18:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unable to find reliable sources to support WP:GNG. Note that this series is not part of the Bus Simulator series published by Astragon. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to City Bus Simulator 2010 based on sources provided below. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked the company website but there is nothing there either. Timur9008 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to City Bus Simulator 2010 per sources provided below. Timur9008 (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I noted in my deprod rationale, Mobygames shows that there are 5 reviews for the first game, of which 3 are WP:VGRS, with one of the other ones having a print edition so I argue is also a VGRS:

"City Bus Simulator 2010 - Test, Simulation". 4Players (in German). Retrieved 2023-02-15. - VGRS
Rosshirt, Rainer (2009-10-19). "City Bus Simulator 2010 im Test: Nächste Haltestelle Hudson River". PC Games (in German). Retrieved 2023-02-15. - VGRS
"City Bus Simulator 2010 PC Review - GamingXP - feel the eXPerience". web.archive.org. 2013-10-19. Retrieved 2023-02-15. - No consensus at VGRS, but has print edition so argue should be VGRS
"City Bus Simulator 2010: New York (PC) - Release, News, Systemanforderungen". www.gamestar.de (in German). Retrieved 2023-02-15. - VGRS, though I note the review is rather short, possibly a full version got lost or is print only

Jumpytoo Talk 18:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpytoo City Bus Simulator 2010 may very well be notable, but that doesn't mean the game series is (which this article and AfD is about)... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are only for 1 of the game, the series however are unnotable.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to City Bus Simulator 2010 The topic of this article isn't the original game in the series, City Bus Simulator 2010, but about the series which only has 2 main games. Like Jumpytoo demonstrated above, City Bus Simulator 2010 (for which an article can be created with the sequel info in a section) meets WP:GNG separately. However, there are no multiple significant reliable sources in my searches that cover the series in general, which is the actual topic that doesn't meet WP:GNG. While my first choice would be to move the article to a base name of the original game, there's little of anything concrete regarding the first game only to support itself beyond a short lead and would be better off with a WP:TNT. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a usable revision that discusses the first game in a bit more detail. While still a stub, it should be a good starting point if the article is to be moved as you propose. At the very least, I don't see the need for WP:TNT deletion. Jumpytoo Talk 03:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this in such case per WP:ATD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are still problems with that, such as the sources are not the same as it was in 2013.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to City Bus Simulator 2010 and revert to its original form. While it would be a stub, the game is demonstrably notable and it is "better than nothing". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument seems to be that sequel isn't considered as notable as the first game. But if the first game is to be considered notable then it would obviously be essential for the article to acknowledge the sequel, which would basically end up with the same situation as present just with a rewording for Wiki editors' sake that wouldn't actually benefit anyone seeking information. I personally would consider both to be notable if nothing else because CBS2 had large-scale retail releases with multiple publishers across different countries, which in 2014 did carry significance (unlike the many thousands of rushed out mobile or indie games that exist today). I don't have sufficient interest in this to bother researching suitable sources but if anyone does wish to try I'd suggest looking at German speaking media. Mainline421 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The series is not notable, howerver one of the games is, which leads me to belive that the notable game should get its own article, not the series.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to City Bus Simulator 2010 - The stub revision from above should be retained for future development. Meets notability guidelines. -- Dane ^talk 21:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Going against the grain here, I know. We have a simulation game about driving a bus in NYC, two subjects for which there are two entirely separate, obsessed fandoms, and these are the only sources available? What does this add, exactly? These appear to be concurrent reviews that don't build on the coverage in any way. The most in-depth (to the extent that it's hard to say the others add much) is from 4players. Assuming that's a good source, it's still not a lot to go on, and if a handful of reviews, with no indication of lasting significance, are all that's required to satisfy video game notability (contrary to the GNG), I'm going to say the bar is too low in this field. But on the subject of reliability, it looks like folks are just deferring to this page, where it was added based on a single opinion from a user with a few hundred edits. Not faulting anything they said, but again it's such a low bar. But I say this knowing that I'm utterly in the minority here, too. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 21 February 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one R&B albums of 1998 (Canada)

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

Every subset of album charts doesn't meet criteria for stand-alone lists. Sources come directly from the publisher just reproducing top 10 lists (no emphasis on #1s or zero actual coverage). There are not independent reliable or significant sourcing. Existence ≠ notability of a topic. Not every chart needs a list of #1s. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. As they said, this is just a reproduction and that doesn't belong here. Also holy crud there's a lot of these. Might need to expand this to cover more. I'm seeing dozens separated by year, country, and genre (and many all-genre lists as well) which all look to suffer from the same issue. If this AfD expands then count my vote to delete against those as well. QuietHere (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No evidence has been presented that research has been conducted to determine the topic is not notable other than looking at the sources present in the list, which was created less than 24 hours ago. This goes against WP:BEFORE. Heartfox (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument presented is that saying that said evidence doesn't exist though. How would one prove such a thing? You generally need to provide a counterpoint of coverage existing before you can through a BEFORE in someone's face... Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally one should - but it's surprising that User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars doesn't mention any BEFORE. Though Heartfox's edit comment within the article itself noting the historical significance is more compelling. Nfitz (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not like you're required to literally write "I did a BEFORE search and found nothing" in every nomination though. It can be implied. They're an experienced editor, they know to look fur that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did say "There are not independent reliable or significant sourcing"; I guess I'm supposed to say "I looked and there are not independent reliable or significant sourcing." LOL Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm having a hard time differentiating between this, and other similar lists for genres for albums for a given year that have passed AFD. Such as WP:Articles for deletion/List of UK Rock Chart number-one albums of 2010, or genre-specific articles such as List of Top Country Albums number ones of 1998 that haven't been nominated (and why doesn't that title mention which country it's for?). I'm not overly familiar with AFDs in this area - but if this one is appropriate, can someone also add List of Billboard number-one R&B albums of 1998 to the nomination - which is far worse referenced than this one! Nfitz (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your example AFD is a decade old. Standards have generally tightened. That same article may not survive were in nominated today. Your other examples...really have on bearing on this. Whether or not other similar articles have been nominated are irrelevant. Sometimes bad articles slip under the radar. I'd focus less on these WP:OSE type observations, and more on this particular articles notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that AFD is old User:Sergecross73. There are examples from this decade though, such at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Top Contemporary Christian Albums number ones of the 1990s. Looking through what exists, there does seem to be a bias towards keeping US articles, but not other countries. I'm not advocating for keep (at this time), I'm simply trying to understand more. OSE, of course, isn't a keep argument. Nfitz (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a lot more lists nominated if the arguments above are genuine. I oppose deletion because I do not feel that adequate research has been conducted to determine the topic is not notable. This chart was active in the late 1990s/early 2000s and many resources (particularly Canadian publications, etc.) from then are not (yet) accessible, e.g. The Record. How do we know there wasn't significant coverage/articles about the chart in it? The data is still valuable, but perhaps not notable enough for a separate list, so I would also support a merge to Canadian Albums Chart, which is what this topic is a subset of. That article can absolutely be expanded, and the table in this list can be styled a different way to minimize length. Heartfox (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide evidence for your own stance. As is, your keep stance largely violates WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources aren't accessible then we can't just assume the coverage exists in them and leave pages up based on that. And you can't put the burden of adequate research on another editor when you openly admit that the research would involve exploring inaccessible sources. QuietHere (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canadian Albums Chart per Heartfox's argument. Stuff can be covered in the Albums Chart article. SBKSPP (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not a fan of a Merge with Canadian Albums Chart as that article is two sentences and this article is a full list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article would have sections for other genre charts ie the country albums chart. The tables would be in album rows rather than week rows, meaning it would be substantially shorter because the number of weeks at number one would be listed in one row. I don't think it would look out of place. Heartfox (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: because a no consensus close isn't going to be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for reliable sources that dealt with the topic, but could not find any that were this specific or close to being this specific. I think it therefore fails WP:NLIST. I'll be happy to reconsider if anyone presents a few sources, but having searched, I an not optimistic they exist. CT55555(talk) 18:45, 14 February 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 Brat TV. Joyous! | Talk 17:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mani (web series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline give Mani the barest of passing mentions; all the other references are primary and non-independent. I looked for additional sources and found nothing useful. Cheers, gnu 57 16:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. gnu 57 16:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brat TV One of many web series they've produced. Nate • (chatter) 00:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom/Nate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 21 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Corner (Armenian TV program)

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

Article is entirely unsourced, appears to even fail GNG. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Pages (Armenian TV program). Silikonz💬 16:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Armenia. Silikonz💬 16:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not speak Armenian but even I can see via Google Translate that there is no reliable, in-depth coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Pages (Armenian TV program)

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

Article is entirely unsourced, appears to even fail GNG. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Made in USSR (Armenian TV program). Silikonz💬 16:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Armenia. Silikonz💬 16:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not speak Armenian but even I can see via Google Translate that there is no reliable, in-depth coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 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!} 17:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SINGER22

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

Small local retailer that has received local attention (Hamptons Magazine) and some celebrity-related attention due to its location among the Long Island Hamptons elite. No in-depth sources to denote this as a notable company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and New York. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. All I could locate was this small piece. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 21:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the WP:YELLOWPAGES nor a platform for promotion. None of the sources meet our guidelines for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:44, 20 February 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 Cape Lindsey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cruiser Rocks

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

WP:NPLACE says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river."

I suggest that there are no other details to write than the name and location on nautical maps. There isn't much else that could be said; it's a rock off an uninhabited island which is part of an almost entirely uninhabited island chain in Antarctica. JMWt (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica. JMWt (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So merge into Cape Lindsey and redirect article, rather than trying to delete the content... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on this page that isn't already on Cape Lindsey. Personally I have my doubts as to whether that is notable either, quite possible that they should both be merged (if there is anything left to merge) to Elephant Island JMWt (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I added the information myself yesterday! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The GNIS was mass-imported into Wikipedia with several thousand entries for Antarctica places. Very few are significant entities (lots of small rocks, cliffs, etc) and few have any significant coverage about them, only that that someone put it on a map with a name. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Cape Lindsey per nom, there is nothing to merge. Hut 8.5 18:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cape Lindsey. As mentioned earlier, there is nothing to merge, as the information is already at the target article. Joyous! | Talk 20:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insignificant mass-created geographical feature. This doesn't really deserve a mention at the Cape Lindsey article either, since it's not prticularly close and doesn't have any significant coverage to establish WEIGHT. –dlthewave ☎ 13:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The mention of these rocks in place at the Cape Lindsey article seems appropriate. Thanks User talk:Dr. Blofeld for adding that, to facilitate settlement of this AFD. (It was worth merging, and it has been merged, so "redirect" now rather than state "merge", right? Or should it be "merge" to reflect fact that a merger happened as part of this AFD?) "Cruiser Rocks" seems like a cool name to me, BTW. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:43, 20 February 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. UPE, extensive sockfarm Drmies (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Ferro

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

I don't think that WP:ARTIST is satisfied. Most of the coverage in the article is either brief, e.g. [1] just lists his name or not independent e.g. [2]. This source from designboom seems to be the best coverage, but I am unsure if it's reliable and it's just coverage of a single exhibition. SmartSE (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extensive sourcing meets GNC, plus the artist was allowed to construct the light sculpture and exhibit among the pyramids of Giza. A pretty good coup, which wouldn't have been allowed if the artist was an unknown or incompetent, so goes to notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 14 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 17:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan F-Alpha platform

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

Non-notable platform that has been unreferenced since 2009. A search shows no useful results. Either it's just referred to in reference to a vehicle using the platform or it's in an unreliable source. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unrelated to the discussion but I forgot to include this in the correct categories. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or, if a reliable source can be located for a sentence's worth, Merge to Body-on-frame. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 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. Unanimous consensus that the subject is notable (bar nominator), adequately covered in reliable sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Brand

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

Was drafted but never played in the NFL. Being a college player and a member of the 1969 College All-American Team is not enough to show notability. References seem to be mentions in databases, but would be happy to see a longer ref which meets the GNG. JMWt (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. JMWt (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly is notable. A consensus first-team All-American (meaning the best player nationally at his position) and received sufficient sigcov to pass GNG: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best college player. There is no accepted notability standard for college American football players but even WP:CFBPLAYER which is an essay put forward by an interested wikiproject fails to note being an All-American pick. Indeed, it goes on to suggest that a professional career afterwards is more important. Personally I don't accept any special status for student athletes in the USA or anywhere else - they need to meet the standards for the GNG and WP:NSPORTS.

As to your articles, they are interesting but arguably they are (a) local media articles (b) which are short and routine and (c) focus on the successes of a young HS and university athlete. The kind of article that is written about those kinds of athletes in every newspaper everywhere. Don't meet the GNG in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being the BEST player in the nation at center is a hugely significant accomplishment, and All-American is a pass of NCOLLATH (even a third-team selection would do it – but this is not that, neither second-team or even first-team – this is a Consensus All-American). As for the articles, locality is 100% irrelevant, ROUTINE does not apply to people (but rather, to events), and collegiate coverage can absolutely count towards GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's weird given WP:COLLATH expressly discusses the concept of routine coverage with respect to college athletes. Which of the criteria 1-5 of WP:COLLATH are you saying that the subject of this article has met? And how is being on an All-American pick somehow not an event? JMWt (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major NCAA Division I record. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two more sigcov sources: [8] [9]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references presented by User:BeanieFan11 which show significant coverage of the subject from news publications unaffiliated with the subject and his university (including one reference from the AP, an authority on college sports coverage). I will note that I could not assess the fourth ref as it was blocked by a paywall, but GNG is established even without that one. Frank Anchor 15:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - besides the newspaper articles linked above, Brand also receives SIGCOV in this book (which is already used as a reference on the page). He meets NBASIC. Hatman31 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:GNG with multiple sources significant coverage from multiple publications as the above sources demonstrate. Passing or failing WP:NCOLLATH has no relevance in AfD. Either the subject has the SIGCOV to pass GNG or not. And Brand has it. Alvaldi (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have never deleted an article on a consensus first-team All-American football player and hopefully never will. Given his level of achievement, it is not surprising that he passes WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH (prong 1). Cbl62 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: Your nomination appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of WP:NCOLLATH and also noted that you "would be happy to see a longer ref which meets the GNG." Now that these matters have been cleared up, might you consider withdrawing the nomination so that efforts can be focused elsewhere? Cbl62 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I've no wish to engage in bludgeoning (and only am replying because of the @) but the idea that these kinds of minor media articles from more than 50 years ago somehow meet the GNG is laughable in my opinion. Clearly some here hold sportsmen from the USA to a special standard that would be unacceptable for anyone else. JMWt (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: In your opinion, what type of articles would satisfy GNG for a sportsperson? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt may or may not wish to chime in, but IMO it's indisputable that the following ~~WP:THREE~~ FOUR represent SIGCOV: (1) "He's Genuine All-America Candidate" (feature story about Brand from major metropolitan newspaper [Memphis] outside Arkansas); (2) "Poke, Porker Pocket Big 4 Award" (second feature story about Brand from another major metropolitan newspaper [Tulsa] outside Arkansas); (3) "Rodney Brand Is Porkers' 'Cleanup' Man" (AP feature story on Brand); and (4) "Rod Brand's Game Plan Uncluttered" (UPI feature story on Brand). Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A more recent article on Brand is found here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep typically a college football center doesn't generate any press at all, or very little and not near enough to pass WP:GNG. This appears to be an exception with the numerous sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the reasons stated here by these editors. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's snowing! Jweiss11 (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Passes WP:GNG with multiple sources covering him. -- Dane ^talk 21:27, 18 February 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) HeinzMaster (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Fight Night

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

Not notable, does not pass GNP HeinzMaster (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Martial arts, and India. HeinzMaster (talk) 13:40, 14 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

$teven Cannon

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:SINGER or WP:GNG. Not finding independent coverage or notability for this artist outside of their association with their childhood friend, Lil Xan, which is mostly passing mentions. Sources provided are not considered WP:RS. 5 are to a media company named Lyrical Lemonade (a company/blog that produced videos for the artist and Lil Xan), 1 to an interview on Genius, a passing mention on hiphopdx, and an interview posted on an apparel company's website. The performer's YouTube page also only has 1 video with over 500k views. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly user-generated content and are thus generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of articles, interviews and videos produced by Genius. Verified commentary from musicians fall under WP:BLPSELFPUB, and usage of such commentary should conform to that policy. Per the "genius is not considered a reliable source" link you attached.

They are only speaking about their lyric submissions, this is not produced by the musician nor a lyric submission.

HipHopDX is writing about HIS SONG, they mention $teven Cannon's name only a quantity of 3 less times than they mention Lil Xan.

Lyrical Lemonade did not produce SEVERAL VIDEOS for the artist. That is a lie, Lyrical Lemonade produced 1 video years prior, and their blog is ran by separate people. That's like saying because Hulu published a show about an artist now they cannot cover them in a documentary in order for it to be independent. That is absurd....

Song views ARE NOT an eligibility factor in determining notability.

Officialangrydub (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above a vote or not? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my vote is for KEEP, despite the bureaucracy of Wikipedians who wish to band together and discredit an obviously reliable music news source. Officialangrydub (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HipHopDX is writing about HIS SONG, they mention $teven Cannon's name only a quantity of 3 less times than they mention Lil Xan. The article is centered around Lil Xan and they mention Cannon once (and not in a positive way).

Song views ARE NOT an eligibility factor in determining notability. In of themselves, no. Views are however useful in understanding how popular a person may be. As an example, if someone has multiple videos with 100m+ views it's much more likely that they're notable.

Regarding Lyrical Lemonade, it's a website owned by video director / videographer, Cole Bennett. Even if they only produced one video they are still a blog (as you mentioned) and have a connection with the person that they're writing about. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has nothing to do with positive or negative context. Plenty of mass murderers and rapists with Wikipedia pages....

By your definition of a blog, then ABC is a blog.. More opinionated nonsense. Officialangrydub (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you're focusing on the wrong points here. You also called Lyrical Lemonade a blog, but it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG, as was explained to you on your talk page by another editor. If this person is as notable as you claim him to be then find non-trivial mentions from any source listed on WP:RS/P and add them to the article. That would be far more constructive than you comparing Lyrical Lemonade to the larger news websites. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that there are several other people named Steven Cannon (without that oh so hype dollar sign). As noted by the previous editors, this guy is only visible in his own self-upload and social media services and has not been noticed by anyone in the reliable music media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So one of the biggest Hip Hop platforms is not a reliable music media source. LOL, your bias is clearly showing. Officialangrydub (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HipHopDX is indeed a reliable source but this discussion is not about them. The discussion is about Mr. Cannon who was mentioned very briefly in a HipHopDX article that was about someone else. I was once mentioned in a city newspaper because I had done some volunteer work, but that doesn't make me notable just because that newspaper is a reliable source. Meanwhile, LOLing and accusing people of bias and opinionated nonsense might make you feel like you achieved a victory, but Mr. Cannon's lack of notability is the real opponent that you need to defeat. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a news article once is entirely different from having songs with millions of streams, being featured on Lyrical Lemonade, and this arist's overall situation.

The issue is perceived notability. While in a way I guess I was comparing LL to "major" news sites, in reality I was just showing you guys that the eligibility factors you guys use to determine reliability of them as a source in comparison to other sources is very inconsistent at best. There's just no factual, non-opiniated reason as to why Lyrical Lemonade isn't a reliable source.. Officialangrydub (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, streams can be bought, so we can't use them for reliability purposes here. They aren't audited like newspaper circulation or Nielsen ratings are. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Harvard Crimson is about the best non-Wordpress site I find, and it's not much for sourcing. Rest is as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again more opinionated nonsense, since when is the source code of a website a determination in reliability.

According to your standards Time Magazine, CNN, The Rolling Stone, Microsoft News, Vogue, New York Times, The White House, New York Post, and CBS are all unreliable sources now correct? Officialangrydub (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are reliable sources, the Harvard Crimson is a student newspaper, we generally don't hold those to the same standard as the New York Times. Not sure what you're arguing about, it's all listed here [10]. Go have a read. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Little usable coverage in the music press, let alone significant coverage. As above, YouTube views are not a factor in notability, as they are an unreliable metric that can be gamed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had already mentioned notability issues on the talk page and previously supported PROD raised by the nominator, which I gather ended up being contested. More time has passed, and there is still no support WP:SINGER or WP:GNG with sources that are verifiable WP:VERIFY. Despite the original editor's suggestions of bias, the criteria for verifiability are quite clear; in the case of Lyrical Lemonade we are dealing with WP:NEWSBLOG at best. It does not mean that the source is not useful or that it is completely unreliable; it means that for the purpose of verifying claims of notability, it is not sufficient on its own. At the risk of sounding repetitive, let me outline four major issues that challenge its reliability and verifiability: 1) the tone of articles/posts indicates these are primarily opinion entries that might serve a specific audience to be used as a quick reference and/or update regarding featured artists; 2) there is no editorial team mentioned anywhere on the website, which indicates lack of editorial oversight, and there is no clear description of the publication and its goals or an editorial mission statement; 3) the website relies heavily on videos which often form the core content, a reliability challenge in and of itself per WP:VIDEOLINK 4) contact links only list the following: Music Submissions, Customer Service, and Brand partnerships/sponsorships. This is all to say: if the source in question was used to support a short statement made in an article on verifiably notable artist, then it might raise some eyebrows but would likely not be ferociously contested; as the main source establishing notability of a BLP, however, it is simply not enough.Ppt91 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only other "sort of" sources that aren't blogs or streaming sites are the Daily Mail and Newsweek, both non-RS. There just isn't anything out there about this person. Never had a charted single, no critical notice at all it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 16 February 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bath Bombs Handball Club

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

Seems like a minor handball team. The only RS I see are paragraph-long game reviews in local media. I'm not sure of the status of WP:NTEAMS but the general impression is that sport teams do not have implied notability and have to meet the GNG. There are not enough RS to show notability in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Handball, and England. JMWt (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no notability in this club. They play in a third tire handball league in England where handball is already a really minor sport. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, which isn't surprising given the low league that they play in, and the low level of handball coverage in the UK. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M'kido

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

This article would appear to fail any number of tests for notability including but not limited to WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. WP:BEFORE done, and it would appear to me that Mr Adekule may well be a Nigerian musician to look for and for people to enjoy his music, but as of 14 Feb 2023 this is not yet ready for "articlespace". As always, please do prove me wrong. User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" i think this article deserve to be kept because the artist deserves notability he is a an online sensation with over 1,000,000 views on his tiktok sound that is an heavy number he won horus artist of the year Edit chi1 (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edit chi1: Welcome to Wikipedia! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON - the subject may well be a talented musician but in order to meet the notability criteria he needs to be noted. And other than very short mentions, I can't find much. JMWt (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet "notable". per Shirt, who worked hard cleaning this up and JMWt. Disclaimer- Was originally was tagged as WP:A7, but obviously I did not honor the CSD tag and watchlisted it instead. I was, BTW, taken by the professional quality of the image. Can only hope creator becomse regular contributor at Commons. And I learned on my return that being an online sensation is not enough. Best.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Vanguard article is quite vague and trivial. Additionally, I don’t see M’kido mentioned in IMDb. None of the references indicate notability. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero coverage found for this person. I hate to repeat myself, but we can't use "views" or followers as any measure of notability, as the numbers aren't vetted and can be increased by bots/streaming farms. Radio airplay is audited and confirmed by sources, you can buy followers and views, so it's not a reliable method to use here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable Princess of Ara 16:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. The author of the article redirected their userpage (User:Ohiseroje) to the article so it's possible that this is also an WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Riley

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

WP:1E - notable primarily for a single event of the NatWest/Enron case, rest of article reads like puffery. No sustained media coverage beyond 2010. Lizthegrey (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and England. Lizthegrey (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I removed all the fluff and added the only references I could find that talked about her specifically (and they're both extremely brief). Appears to not be notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found, even with PR links, I don't see anything about her. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above two comments; there is not much notability or significant coverage. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not visible. I can not find significant coverage.--იაკობ მახარაძე (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG - couldn't find any notable or significant coverage at all. -- Dane ^talk 21:36, 18 February 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!} 06:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Klitzner

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

General failure of WP:BASIC for a WP:BLP. Subject's notability is questionable, with few to no citations for any of their work, especially secondary sources. News sources to support television presence are unable to be found, aside from user submitted sources (IMDB, etc) (WP:NRV).

Far too many primary or unreliable sources on the page. First citation is link to child's YouTube channel, without any news source. Seventh and tenth citations link to Sean Klitzner's own website, which redirects to YouTube channel. These are not appropriate sources.

Main text of page, sections of which are largely uncited, is entirely about their online content, though the notability of the online content is very questionable (WP:NWEB, WP:INHERENTWEB). TheRealOj32 (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, Internet, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can find is a Daily Beast post where he opines that Jersey Shore is fake [11], repeated here [12]. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He might be eligible as ACTOR for being in the cast of Prank Stars, but it was only on for one season and got taken off the air quickly; I can't find sourcing to confirm how notable/important he was on the cast. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 07:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and NBIO.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:12, 14 February 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!} 07:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Values within polyamory

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

This article is a complete mess. Original research. One citation (somebody's thesis). Issue tags have been hanging for the past decade plus. Propose to merge with the polyamory article or shred entirely. Tdmurlock (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatantly a personal essay, and OR. Elemimele (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the page needs to be TNT-ed as a personal essay. The topic itself might be notable as there may be books and other RS, but any resulting page would have to be neutral and not look like this. JMWt (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Elemimele. Lizthegrey (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wholly unencyclopedic. Agree with all the above comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY CT55555(talk) 14:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given above; at best a TNT matter. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is definitely not encyclopedic and falls under WP:NOTESSAY. -- Dane ^talk 21:30, 18 February 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 Withdrawn. Sources have been found to exist, I just searched for them wrong. Seems like no one has any reason for deleting the article now so closing. (non-admin closure) silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 04:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network

AfDs for this article:

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

The first AfD nomination of this article, made in 2006, had a keep result primarily on the basis of WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:IKNOWIT. Looking at the page, the references currently listed are almost entirely WP:ABOUTSELF citations, which pose significant and obvious conflict of interest problems. In a WP:BEFORE (excluding self-coverage Google results with '-site:animenewsnetwork.com "anime news network" website'), I was hardly able to find any WP:SIGCOV, with the only particularly notable event being covered by other outlets being that they were acquired by Kadokawa Corporation last year. ([13] [14]) I'm not sure that this makes them independently notable. Nearly every other hit fails the requirement to "address the topic directly and in detail" when considered as a potential source, nearly always only mentioning them in the context of quoting what someone from the site said about a different topic.

If further sources evidencing notability are found, I'll readily close this discussion if the consensus leads there, but as it stands I'm not sure this is worth its own article (though perhaps it can be merged into Kadokawa Corporation). silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 07:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Anime and manga, and Websites. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 07:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about @Kunzite:'s comment in the first AfD regarding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, wouldn't that meet WP:WEB? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, yes, if it were included in the article. However, I don't see it mentioned nor sourced in the article, no secondary source was provided within the comment of the first AfD, and I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources covering that event. The one source that was provided in the AfD was a WP:PRIMARY source (from ANN itself) which I don't think clearly evidences that event's notability. If anyone finds a better source for that, I would probably agree that it proves the site to be notable. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 14:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am looking through past discussions regarding the matter and found out that the parent company of ANN also published Protoculture Addicts. They also hosted regular columns by Jason Thompson (Manga: The Complete Guide) as well as Mike Toole (formerly of AnimeJump). Here is a link to all of the discussions regarding ANN as a reliable source on Wikipedia: (Anime/Manga Project discussions: 1 2 3 4, RS/N discussions: 1 2). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not ANN is a reliable source (they are) is a completely separate question of if they are a notable source. I don't think that the outcomes and findings of the RS discussions are of relevance to the question of their notability. There are plenty of reliable publications which are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles.

The Protoculture Addicts article meets the GNG more readily than this article does (by virtue of it not having eighty percent of its sources be itself) and I get the sense that the ANN article might be very well improved enough for me to support keeping if the information from the former were merged into the latter. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 14:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources for ANN: [15], [16], [17], [18]. The latter of these are "Digital Libraries: Achievements, Challenges and Opportunities 9th International Conference on Asian Digial Libraries, ICADL 2006, Kyoto, Japan, November 27-30, 2006, Proceedings". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these. I think that these books seem like good sources at a glance, and probably enough for the topic to better pass notability. If no one else comments with a dissenting opinion within like a day or two, I'll probably withdraw this AfD and add those sources to the article. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 14:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4: To your credit, you looked hard for sources so I thank you for that too. In this case "ANN" is abbreviated in the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 14 February 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 Bashundhara Kings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bashundhara Kings Ultras

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

Not meeting WP:GNG. Less than two years of existence with routine coverage here and there. Hitro talk 07:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Bangladesh. Hitro talk 07:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prob delete - there are some refs on the page, but they either appear to be very brief mentions or in potentially unreliable sources. My only hesitation is that there may be in-depth non-English refs, but tbh this seems unlikely for a supporter group of a sports team in a sport that isn't particularly popular in that country. JMWt (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bashundhara Kings. Three of the sources are reliable, Kaler Kantho, The Daily Observer (Bangladesh), and Prothom Alo. The remaining one source is a blog. Football is wildly popular in Bangladesh; the national team is not very good at it.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bashundhara Kings. Not independently notable enough for a separate article- almost all most sports teams' fan groups aren't, and one that was created under two years ago definitely won't be. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bashundhara Kings Ultras is a new football supporter group but it is an active and registered supporter group by Bashundhara Kings Club and its membership is constantly increasing. Having the Bashundhara Kings Ultras article on Wikipedia will help Bangladeshi football fans learn more about football and help others join the football fan community. So please don't delete this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helal88hossain (talk • contribs)

Just because it exists, that isn't a reason to keep this article. And Wikipedia is not for promoting the fan group. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Giant Snowman 19:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bashundhara Kings.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of wars involving Vietnam#Republic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

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

Don't see why this should be a separate stand-alone list, seeing as List of wars involving Vietnam is already subdivided by period/predecessor state, making this one mostly redundant. Created at AfC and accepted by User:PK650. Paul_012 (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lists, and Vietnam. Paul_012 (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of wars involving Vietnam#Republic: (Merge if anything is somehow missing). A redundant list is redundant. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of wars involving Vietnam#Republic, completely unnecessary duplication as noted by nom. Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 20 February 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!} 05:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Troweek, Arizona

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

A house, a barn, a corral, and Parson Spring are all that comprise this spot, which was copied into GNIS from a state highway map. GHits are deep into clickbait range, and the only possibly information book hits was for Barnes's place names book, and since an excerpt was not provided I'm inclined to call this a false hit. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the first time in a while I've seen a place with zero coverage on Newspapers.com - every hit in Arizona or New Mexico was a false positive for a phrase like "two-week" or a similarly spelled last name. Usually there's at least an old railroad schedule or a loosely connected real estate ad or something. Needless to say this doesn't pass GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elinruby (talk) 19:06, 15 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bet Your Bottom Dollar

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

Spam for non notable future film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Refbombed with routine announcements, reproduced PR, a listing and local interest puff. Constructed by an SPA and a bunch of Guernsey IPs. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON to tell whether it's going to be notable. Currently over-referenced with regurgitated press-release PR material. Needs true independent write-ups to be notable in future. Elemimele (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:* Keep the film is notable. It has been covered by the likes of Deadline Hollwood. Moreover, it has received wider interest than mere "routine announcements", with proof in articles in which it was name-dropped in independent, third-party reliable sources, such as Media Play News and frompage2screen. Further, all sources are international media / news outlets. I don't think any of the sources can be reasonably described as "local interest puff". I don't see any local news outlet reporting being cited. I do however agree that the references section could be cleaned - perhaps it is worth removing regurgitated news pieces that are spin-outs from the initial Deadline Hollywood article. One could argue that a film with the likes of Paterson Joseph and César Award-nominated Marc Duret is inherently notable. Thanks @Duffbeerforme for raising. Very best regards.

~~46.31.240.176 (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)~~The user has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dobhran6ruadh DonaldD23 talk to me 21:59, 15 February 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. czar 17:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeddah Japanese School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A search in Japanese, English and Arabic came up with no reliable sources. The only source provided is its own website. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Jumbo T (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see one or two more specific opinions than "per nom".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; it does not pass WP:NSCHOOL and does not have any independent sources covering it. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search in Japanese, English and Arabic came up with no reliable sources. – Here's an article from Arab News. According to WP:RSP, there is consensus that Arab News is a usable source for topics unrelated to the Saudi Arabian government. – small jars tc 19:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's 1 source but do we have significant coverage? LibStar (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well apart from that there's this pdf which seems to describe the school. I'm not sure about the reliability of the source. small jars tc 23:45, 14 February 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. UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics Mart India Limited

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

~~WP:ROUTINE coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Article fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV from RS. FreeEncyclo (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)~~ bad faith nomination by sock. Akevsharma (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. FreeEncyclo (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to the guidelines outlined in WP:LISTED, a company that is publicly traded is considered notable if it has independent press coverage and analyst reports as sources. The article in question contains three credible analyst reports and an adequate amount of independent press coverage. Akevsharma (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note Akevsharma is the creator of the article. FreeEncyclo (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note : Prior to this nomination, the nominator has made a few edits (less than 15), with their most recent edit dating back to March 2018. Akevsharma (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it passes WP:LISTED as it has independent press coverage and analyst sources. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you think meet WP:CORPDEPTH? FreeEncyclo (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG, as nominator also mentioned it. --- 👑Misterrrrr👑 (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC) blocked as a sock. Akevsharma (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterrrrr, We are talking about WP:LISTED here. Please read the criteria. Akevsharma (talk) 06:46, 15 February 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 Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo. There's consensus that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article, and there's no consensus for outright deletion, so that leaves merge as the result. If there are concerns about the photo's notability, they should be raised in another AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mykhailo Korenovsky

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

Article is mostly (entirely, actually) about his death, which is already covered extensively as part of the attack on the residential building by the Russian forces. Unfortunate event, for sure, but the article should be about the boxing coach, whose career is not covered at all and we can't be sure it was relevant at all. Bedivere (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (as article creator) Subject meets WP:GNG due to the multiple pieces of significant coverage in reliable sources. His death was notable, so was his funeral, so was the photo taken of his kitchen. That's three events at least.

At first I thought this was a WP:ONEEVENT situation and I created it as Killing of Mykhailo Korenovsky, but consensus emerged on the talk page that a biographical style article was more appropriate, and User:Super Dromaeosaurus moved it, which I supported. Regarding the comment the article should be about the boxing coach..career is not covered... there is no policy that I'm aware of that someone has to be primarily notable for their job, people can be notable for their death, or for a video they made of their family before their death, or their kitchen. It's unusual, but not a policy based reason to delete.

I could list the sources that give the significant coverage, but BBC, New York Times, Sky News, Time Magazine etc etc all cover him, so it seems not necesary to prove, when it seems so obvious. CT55555(talk) 02:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about the person, we need details on his life. His death is already covered in the missile attack article. If the article is about the yellow kitchen, we'd need sourcing on that. Dying in a missile attack in a war isn't notable; he's no different than any other person that passed away, as he wasn't a notable boxing coach. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, several other people died during the attack and none of these have nor will have an article. Korenovsky's death is only known, barely, because of the kitchen photo. I think an article about the kitchen photo could be created eventually, where some of the content in this particular article about the boxing coach could be used. Obviously, if we can't be sure this individual is notable otherwise, this can't be kept. Bedivere (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Time magazine article I linked in the photographer's AfD, talking about the impact of the photo. That could be the lead and these could all be selectively merged there. Oaktree b (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's not notable as a person, we could perhaps have an article about the kitchen photo, but I think it's adequately covered as explained in the nom. He's a non-notable boxing coach, who had he not died, would not warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Slash had not been so good at the guitar, he also wouldn't warrant one. That's not a reason to delete an article. Indeed it's the kitchen photo that went globally viral, that is actually what this article is mostly about, in my opinion, how a photo touched the hearts of so many people. That is a separate topic from the actual bombing. Just like Alan Kurdi's death was separate from the sinking of the ship that his family were on. To delete this article is to think that the response to the photo is the same topic as the bombing, but it is not. Plenty people know of the yellow kitchen, but not the wider event. The kitchen might be more notable than the wider event. I'm even more surprised that anyone would favour deletion over merging to 2022–2023 Dnipro missile strikes which I assume was the most dramatic action anyone would advocate for here. CT55555(talk) 03:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then create an article about the kitchen photo, not about the non-notable boxing coach who is not even the primary subject of the article, but the kitchen photo. Bedivere (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I created an event article, which someone else changed into this biographical article. I created an article about an event, not a biography. I'm OK with the change, but before you tell me what to do, please note what I actually did do. CT55555(talk) 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to be rude, @CT55555. Please excuse me if it read like that. Bedivere (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have proposed to delete three things that I've started in less than an hour, and then you tell me what to do...to be transparent, this chain of events is not filling me with joy.

Moving on...what do you think an article about the yellow kitchen should be titled? That was my starting point, but all roads I took lead here. I feel strongly that the yellow kitchen photo and the global response to it was a significant moment in human history, exactly how it is presented matters less. CT55555(talk) 03:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not clean-up. We have three non-notable articles that could be incorporated into another article. We're here discussing each individually, hopefully to keep some information about this event and the people involved. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that photo might be up for a Pulitzer Prize or something similar, it seems to have struck a chord with people. Like the photo of the girl running naked from the fire bombing in Vietnam, it just seems to catch a certain time and place in the war. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I added it below. Phan Thi Kim Phuc photographed by Nick Ut during the Vietnam War CT55555(talk) 04:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to go all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but this is a great comparison point and I note that the solution for the above was an article on the person, which exists simultaneous to the event article (the war) and the photographer's article. I hope you all might be sympathetic for lean towards consistency in how the encyclopaedia has dealt with pervious notable war photos. CT55555(talk) 04:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep things in perspective. This is nowhere being as notable as the Vietnam photo. It might be in the future, we don't know. But just because other stuff exists (as per the page you linked, actually) doesn't mean this one should exist. I am all for keeping only an article about the photo, merging the boxer and photographer articles, as long as the photo is considered notable by other users. Bedivere (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup in a nutshell: If an article on a notable subject can be improved through normal editing, do not put it through a deletion discussion. I agree strongly. CT55555(talk) 03:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this person isn't notable. Bedivere (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 04:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - outside of his death, there is no notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only marginally notable for one event. Very little mention of this person or photograph since it first went viral and any conjecture about future Pulitzers is WP:CRYSTALBALL and outside of the scope of this biographical article anyway. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since nomination for deletion it has not received any new content despite the evident lack of it as it only focuses on the attacks, of which Knorenovsky was one of several casualties. Bedivere (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the recent comment above, I have added an early life and education section, a career section, and a family life section. New coverage is ongoing with the most recent coverage being today. I think assessments of this article made before this comment are now out of date. CT55555(talk) 01:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making some improvements. I still think it should be merged into an eventual article about the photograph. Bedivere (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I still argue to keep, I'm concerned that the content will be lost, so have created Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo to enable the editors who want this kept, but as a photo article, to have a merge target. cc @Oaktree b CT55555(talk) 01:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merger to Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a BIO1E situation where even the more newsworthy photo may not qualify for a page based on SUSTAINED. The DUE content is already covered elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge introduction and Death and Aftermath to Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo, removing the irrelevant personal background. Many references in reliable sources, so it does seem notable. (Note: I strongly prefer the name Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo to the original Killing of Mykhailo Korenovsky title.) Radzy0 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Article should be merged. It is obvious now that the boxing coach is not relevant on his own. Bedivere (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As an WP:ATD, due to the current topic not meeting WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just reaffirming my deletion vote above as I am not sure that Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo even passes WP:GNG when you look at the sources more closely. Sources are mainly about the event rather than the photograph. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin (or indeed anyone) for advice on the circular problem I'm faced with. This was an event article. The comment above suggests agreement that there is potential for an event article. But an editor unilaterally changed the original version of the article we are discussing here away from Killing of Mykhailo Korenovsky to this current title. Then people said he is not notable, but the photograph is, so I create the photograph article. Now it is suggested that the photograph is not notable, but the event that created it is. That's full circle. The range of opinions here seem all be editors who think something is notable, maybe the person, maybe the photograph, maybe the event. I wouldn't mind much if we could reach consensus on which one is and direct everything there, but I fear the theme here is people focussing on what they want to delete, implying something should be kept, but without consensus on what, please can we all agree not to delete everything?

Maybe this would have been a more productive discussion if the three simultaneous deletion discussions were done on the one page. CT55555(talk) 00:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I think nothing and no one related to this photograph/event is notable and the topic falls into WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe it will become notable over time - who knows - but it isn't now. Creating multiple articles to try and get this covered on WP doesn't seem very productive. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, three articles about the same thing are more than needed. One, if any, would suffice and that's the kitchen photo article. Bedivere (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, one is a detailed biography of a photographer with years of press coverage for about four notable events. One is the biography of a man, that I do agree was better suited as an event article. One is about a photograph, that I was encouraged to create , earlier in the AFD. I see overlap between the event and the photograph article, the suggestion that Yan Dobronosov is only notable for one photograph, when reliable sources have documented his years-long interesting career, I find difficult to leave unchallenged. CT55555(talk) 00:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did encourage you to create the kitchen photo article and have not suggested it to be deleted, but others may find it is a possibility. I do think Dobronosov is not sufficiently notable and as I have previously told you in their own AFD, we do not have to agree on this. Bedivere (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my error. You proposed to delete the photo, not the article about the photo. CT55555(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did propose the photo for deletion before the article was created (and where inclusion is valid), because I don't think the fair use rationales for their use on the boxing coach and the photographer article are correct. It will not be deleted (as long as the photo article remains live). Bedivere (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to relist again but I'm not seeing a consensus except for a majority of editors who think some part of this event/photo/person is notable. That is why I suggested considering a Merge. I wish I could wave my hand and bundle all three articles into one AFD but that is not possible at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been following this discussion and I'll admit I have mixed feelings about the various articles that have been mentioned. I really don't think that Korenovsky has done anything that would merit a standalone article--I see no SNG that is met nor do I think the coverage of him meets WP:GNG. All deaths are tragic, but most fall under WP:NOTNEWS. There have been plenty of pictures from the invasion of Ukraine which generate a range of emotions, but I don't know which of them will stand the test of time in terms of historical significance--which is what I think WP:NEVENT is about. Papaursa (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on the photograph. Doesn't seem to meet GNG, but an article on the photograph might be okay. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:12, 21 February 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) 23:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Famagusta Namık Kemal High School

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

NN school UtherSRG (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Cyprus. UtherSRG (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG, I've expanded the article with one online, in-depth and indepedent account of the school's history, and two offline sources. Further sources are available e.g. this work on the school building, this summary of historical accounts, and loads of newspaper articles e.g. [19] [20]. This is without me having to consult any specific book about the history of Famagusta or the history of education in Northern Cyprus e.g. Batmayan eğitim güneşlerimiz by Ali Nesim, which invariably will have more information. Just as a note, I was planning to work on this... When requesting undeletion I explicitly stated that it could be restored to my userspace to allow me to work on this before bringing it back to the mainspace. Doing that would have been way more courteous than restoring it and then AfDing it 30 hours later with a low-effort rationale (WP:BEFORE?), without giving me a chance to work on the thing. --GGT (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there have been no other participants to this discussion since the first relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it meets WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:47, 14 February 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!} 03:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lindy Chen

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

Only apparent coverage is one article in a regional newspaper; mostly this is apparently just a WP:PROMO piece for a not-actually-notable "entrepreneur". Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Business, Management, Economics, and Australia. Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. Promotional in both content and tone. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject appears to be non-notable business woman. Only basis of notability would seem to be some business awards but I'm not sure they meet WP:GNG, and the sourcing for many doesn't actually mention the subject at all. I found 2 possibly reliable sources (here and here) that mention her as part of the Sunnybank Chamber of Commerce, but to me these really seem insufficient to establish notability. Cabrils (talk) 22:21, 16 February 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 African wild dog#Threats. (and please no copyright violations). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

African Wild Dog Conservancy

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to African wild dog#Threats. Joyous! | Talk 02:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to African wild dog#Threats per Joyous! - the article was created back in 2007 by an SPA; was edited in October 2011 by two more SPAs; and has not been improved since, so it certainly looks promotional (WP:ADV) with (ancient) conflicts of interest (WP:COI). There are passing mentions of the charity on the web. It seems a worthy cause deserving of a very brief mention in the target article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I've gone in and updated new content on the African Wild Dog Conservancy page to enrich it. I've done my best as the author of the original content to do so. Could you please clarify why today's updates were rolled back? If there are any copyright infringements present, I'm unaware of them. Thanks. 1enchilada (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the Administrator who rolled your edits back did so because of a copyright violation, as they gave the edit comment "Copyright issue re https://www.awdconservancy.org/biodiversity%20hotspots.html". You should be aware that you are not allowed to copy from the Wild Dog Conservancy website any more than you can copy from anybody else's website, it's still a breach of copyright. If you are going to edit here you do need to learn the basics of Wikipedia policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Joyous and Chiswick Chap. It lacks sigcov and looks overly promotional. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 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!} 06:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Szőllős

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Israel, and Hungary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination.
Delete. The non-stats source cited in the article has just a passing mention of Benjamin, and I couldn't find any more than that in a search. JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 14 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Collins (writer)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR, searches in gnews and Australian website trove did not yield significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR with reviews of A Thousand Nights at the Ritz:

Kerryn, Goldsworthy (2010-03-20). "IN SHORT - FICTION". Sydney Morning Herald. p. 30.

Dempsey, Dianne (2010-03-06). "SHORT STORIES: OFF THE SHELF". The Age. p. 29.

And Alva's Boy:

"Alva's Boy by Alan Collins – Quadrant Online". quadrant.org.au. Retrieved 2023-02-14.

Dempsey, Dianne (2008-11-01). "Looking back on dark years: MEMOIR". The Age. p. 25.

Other sources include an obituary in the Newcastle Herald (proquest) and scholarly analysis in [21]. Jfire (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Australia. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the requirements of WP:NAUTHOR and the links above are reliable sources -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 23:42, 14 February 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.