Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 21	July 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 22:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nationale Top 40 Suriname

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

A article about record chart failing WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV. Its chart listing on English Wikipedia is sourced using Facebook and/or Blogspot, both of which are considered as unreliable. The article's citations are majoritively supported by WP:BLOGS, other than I couldn't any reliable sources to proof that it's notable with significant coverage from secondary reliable sources and also independent of the subject. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The chart's data collection and neutrality are unclear, and no music chart would just track three items on a list. Nate • (chatter) 00:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a bit confused by the nom, as both Starnieuws and Waterkant are news media of some stature and definitely not blogs. I am not seeing any problem with the sourcing here. It should not be a surprise that a Surinamese Top 40 list will be covered chiefly in Surinamese media. Some more sources would be nice, but they certainly exist, see e.g. [1], [2]. -- Visviva (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visviva. マリオマリオ (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see the GNG problems here either. I'm also not sure why the chart's data collection and neutrality would matter; it's the article subject. GNG sources should be independent, but there is no policy, guideline, or other form of consensus that says article subjects need to be neutral – what would that even mean –, nor that charts need to track a certain number of items to be eligible for an article. The deletion arguments provided so far are very unconvincing to me. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:A7‎. (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 21:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manek Mistry

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

Unsourced BLP, searches come up with mainly educational writer namesakes. Karnataka (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Environment. Karnataka (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ZERO sourcing, could be a hoax. I'd have sent it for speedy deletion, but it works the same. Oaktree b (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we are about to complete his profile page of wiki we are compiling information so would request you not to delete it Sushantwildlife (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

could have done a PROD PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note also, an old revision of creator's user page also identifies a potential COI. Seems like a good faith misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. —siro χ o 06:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Charsaddian (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No evidence of WP:BIO and fails WP:N. ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 16:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I think this may be an A7, I've tagged it as such. BangJan1999 18:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ as a hoax/attack article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Larson (celebrity)

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

Non-notable TikToker (?). Beyond mentions in TikTok videos and a subreddit, I could find nothing on him. 0 coverage in RS. ULPS (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ULPS (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This article has been moved around at least a half dozen times to numerous different titles and namespaces by this editor, most recently deleted as an attack page at Draft:Daniel Larson (President). The page creator tried to hijack Dan Larson (politician) which required numerous revision deletions. I think this article should also be speedy deleted and this editor face sanctions for continuing to create unflattering pages about this person (if they even exist). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say it qualifies under G10? I didn't think A7 applied (the billion views thing + being allegedly killed by police), but I was unsure considering it's not an unambiguous attack. Not a hoax either, the guy seemingly does exist. ULPS (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the BLP is unsourced, I wouldn't rule out that it is a total hoax and the photo might be of someone else entirely. I think if someone was a TikTok celebrity and was killed by the police it would not just be on local news but national news. I'd delete it myself but I've already commented here. But I think that my POV is also colored by the fact that I've seen this exact same article with the same content many times under different page titles over the past two weeks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the police murder thing is a lie, but he does seem to exist. I think we should let the AfD run (most likely will end up deleted anyway) but if someone else decides to tag or delete I wouldn't complain lol. ULPS (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect this is a hoax. The photo is apparently a selfie, so would have been created by this person. It was taken on July 5, and the article here says he died on the 11th. He took the photo, uploaded it to wikipedia, died, then someone else made an article about him a week later, using the photo? The only person with the same name [3] for which I found coverage would be about 20 yrs older and only covered in tabloid sources.Oaktree b (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cizario da Costa

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

I created this article before the SNGs were deprecated. Subject earned two caps for the Guinea-Bissau national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Devoke water 09:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Asif Ali (actor). WP:ATD-R. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's World of Imagination

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in "independent" reliable sources about the company itself. No inherent notability. Passing mentions and routine coverage won't count. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nom in principle. Redirect to Asif Ali (actor) hopefully leading readers to the information they seek over there thereby discouraging creating such an article again, no merge necessary. —siro χ o 21:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet GNG. 116.68.98.76 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources does not seem to be of RS standard. Notability is not established here. Okoslavia (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 09:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valiyaveettil Movie International

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in "independent" reliable sources about the company itself. No inherent notability. Passing mentions and routine coverage won't count. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet GNG. 116.68.98.76 (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ORG is not meeting here. Okoslavia (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 09:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Amal Neerad. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Neerad Productions

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in "independent" reliable sources about the company itself. No inherent notability. Passing mentions and routine coverage won't count. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nom in principle. Redirect to Amal Neerad hopefully leading readers to the information they seek over there thereby discouraging creating such an article again, no merge necessary. —siro χ o 21:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet GNG. 116.68.98.76 (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @The Doom Patrol, WP:ROUTINE is a section within the Notability (events) guideline. Amal Neerad Productions are not an event. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements, filming, related functions, promotional tours, screening etc are events. The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Doom Patrol, the applicable guidelines are:
- Notability (films) guideline
- Notability (organizations and companies) guideline
Those are the ones the closing admin will refer to, not the Notability (events) guideline.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I think you are not following. Coverage for film related events won't count as notability for a company. The Doom Patrol (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amal Neerad Graywalls (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amal Neerad.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Anwar Rasheed. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Rasheed Entertainments

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in "independent" reliable sources about the company itself. No inherent notability. Passing mentions and routine coverage won't count. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nom in principle. Redirect to Anwar Rasheed hopefully leading readers to the information they seek over there thereby discouraging creating such an article again, no merge necessary. —siro χ o 21:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet GNG. 116.68.98.76 (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significance and no significant coverage from multiple reliable sources BoraVoro (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dileesh Pothan. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working Class Hero (film production company)

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in "independent" reliable sources about the company itself. No inherent notability. Passing mentions and routine coverage won't count. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nom in principle. Redirect to Dileesh Pothan who seems to be the more notable of the 2 relevant producers, hopefully leading readers to the information they seek over there thereby discouraging creating such an article again, no merge necessary. —siro χ o 21:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet GNG. 116.68.98.76 (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Verma

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

Only one lead role, nothing else notable. Fails WP:NACTOR.

I am also nominating the following related pages because fails WP:NACTOR.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe only one lead role but it looks like Ajmer 92 will be a very notable and controversial film. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Even if Karan Verma is notable, Surya Sreenivas (bundled above) isn't right? DareshMohan (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable as even though ~~having at least~~ he only had one lead role in a clearly notable film ~~(Criterion for notability of Creative professionals).~~ (And: Surya Sreenivas might be okayish.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) (Edited, see below, my bad!)[reply]
Comment @Mushy Yank: @Liz:

Both of these people are actors not creative professionals.
The criterion is "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;" or "The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."
There is nothing unique for both of them; they did not direct or write any films, so first criterion.
Karan Verma: With just one film, it is a WP:Too early.
Surya Sreenivas:

Film	Role	Notes	Notable
Karam Dosa	Second lead	Shivakumar Ramachandravarapu has a bigger character. No 2 reliable reviews.	Yes
Nenosta	Lead	No article. No 2 reliable reviews.	No
Mahanati	Supporting/cameo	portrayed actor NTR	Yes
Kudi Yedamaithe	Supporting		Yes

DareshMohan (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right but Karan Verma has attracted quite a lot of attention for his only role so far. Even with what's currently on the page, can we not say that he meets the general criterion ("People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject")? (I'll leave it at that) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So one notable film = multiple films? DareshMohan (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Who said that? He meets the general criterion for people not the specific criteria for actors. Again, I'll leave it that, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: What makes Surya Sreenivas okayish notable? 4 of his lead films have no article/2 reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant is not necessarily a lead role. One lead role in a film at least. And significant characters in 3/4 web series. I'm really leaving it at that, now. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, the nominator, withdraw my nomination. DareshMohan (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Cinema Collective

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks "significant coverage" (WP:ORGDEPTH) in "independent" reliable sources about the organization itself. Also lacks WP:DIVERSE. Sources are mostly sensationalized coverage and routine news surrounding controversies or such statements since its members are celebrities (WP:INHERITORG). Inherent notability (assumed by media) has resulted in articles about its establishment and objectives and not based on their contributions or impact. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A non exhaustive search brings up plenty, this meets WP:NORG. Here's 2 SIRS sources, and a couple more helpful ones
1. Mathew, Jimin S; Isac, Alna Mariya. , Journal of International Women's Studies
2. Nair, Tara S. Economic and Political Weekly(available on ProQuest via TWL to verify)
3. Less in-depth but still helpful [4] (available on ProQuest via TWL to verify)
4. Here's a another helpful source [5]. It has a lot of background, then moves into statements from members, so borderline for SIRS.

—siro χ o 21:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources identified above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7 Non-admin closure‎. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat FC

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

Only source is a 6 year old article (that I can't access from this neck of the woods anyhow) that is titled "...Gujarat could have an ISL, I-League team soon". My BEFORE can not find anything only the similar named state football team, therefore I thinks the article should be deleted now and re-created if/when a team actually is formed in the future. Josey Wales^Parley 20:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and India. Josey Wales^Parley 20:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was moved by the creator to West Lion United FC and subsequently speedy deleted CSD A7 by Bbb23, perhap a non-involved user could now close this discussion please Josey Wales^Parley 15:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Path of Duty

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

Non-notable episode, sources in article are IMDb and a factfile website with plot summaries. BEFORE searches give where to watch and a few passing mentions with brief plot summary when describing the TV series this stems from. Karnataka (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Karnataka (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes per my comments at the previous episode's AfD. For what it's worth, I would be okay with most of this show's episodes being boldly merged and redirected to the episode list (but not deleted, as the episodes are good redirects). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya

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

This article fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. The person is not elected representative, representing government at any level and sources are also scarce. Admantine123 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Admantine123 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Allahabad High Court is an WP:NPOL qualifying position: specifically, judges who have held... state/province–wide office. They're a judge on the highest court of a state with 241 million inhabitants, this is an easy keep. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TulsaPoliticsFan.Judge of the Allahabad High Court is a WP:NPOL qualifying position.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NJUDGE. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per others above, a clear-cut WP:NPOL pass. Sal2100 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duckstation (emulator)

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. All of the current sources are primary, user generated, or otherwise unreliable. I used the WP:VG/S Google searches and found only one reliable source, but at two sentences/paragraphs about the subject it's hardly significant. A more general Google search turned up only the usual primary sources, databases, forums, social media posts, etc. Woodroar (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any reliable sources in my search that cover it to a significant degree, aside from the one mentioned. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. After a brief BEFORE I found there are reliables sources but SIGCOV isn’t fully evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources did you find? Woodroar (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really enough to be considered a valid keep argument. What sort of sources did you find? Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from the GamesRadar piece mentioned, all I found are stray mentions in other topics; it's clearly A Thing, but doesn't appear to meet the SIGCOV threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to William Robertson Coe. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Augustus Coe

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

Only notable through his son. Google and perplexity.ai have nothing. Wire723 (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William Robertson Coe. No BLP issues to consider. —siro χ o 22:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability found. Zero. Thus, there is also no justification to merge the subject to a notable bio just because the subjects are related. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to justify the merge. There is information in this article that is useful to a biography of William Robertson Coe, like details about that article's subject's immigration (ship, destination, where subject settled, etc). This is essentially a good faith WP:CONTENTFORK (a semi-WP:REDUNDANTFORK) and should be merged into the correct article. I volunteer to handle the merge if that is the consensus. —siro χ o 20:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a reasonable WP:ATD. This is a possible search term and verified information can well be placed in the son's article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchings High School

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

Only primary sources provided. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Maharashtra. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG, and hence WP:NSCHOOL. Can't find WP:RS that would improve the article or notability. Longhornsg (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founded in 1879 144 years old.Added Ref.As per WP:NEXIST offline sources are bound to exist for such an old institution.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, (1a) I agree with Pharaoh of the Wizards, it's inconceivable that a school of such age would have generated no paper write-ups of its history, and in any case (1b) the school itself knows quite a bit about its history[6], and although we're not supposed to use the subject's own words, given the choice between assuming that they made it up, or assuming that they got it from somewhere, I think the latter is more likely. (2) We have a strong systematic bias on this. Most UK high-schools have articles, often based on little more than local news reports of whatever scandal or rebuild has happened. This school is in India, but also has local news reports of scandals[7] etc.[8]; why would we treat Indian schools differently to UK schools? Elemimele (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it currently sits. The sources are totally inadequate. The notion that it's old so it must be notable doesn't hold water. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work either. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elemimele and found some refs from The Indian Express ,The Times of india [9] [10] [11][12] Hence meets WP:GNG.Divesome (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmimele and the sources found by Divesome. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to assess new sources brought up in the deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been revised and has multiple solid sources now.

Lijil (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, largely per Elemimele. I find the "scandal" sources more persuasive than the others cited in this discussion so far. In any event, here are some additional sources that haven't been cited thus far: [13], [14], [15]. Being quite substantial and directly related to the article subject, and published in independent reliable sources, it appears to me that these articles in particular meet the GNG. (They might meet NORG as well, but we don't have to get into that per WP:NSCHOOL.)
As a side note, I would observe that invoking OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to dismiss any consideration of systemic bias is such classic WP:ATAATA material that it has its own bullet point there and also gets a mention at Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. -- Visviva (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fionna Gibb

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Most of the coverage is about the rainbow flag incident which is not WP:SIGCOV about her and would be better placed in the relevant bilateral relations article. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. I found some additional references by searching for the person's name, restricted to the country where she was posted. That is, I searched for "Fionna Gibb" site:by. This is often the best way to find additional references about an ambassador or other diplomat. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't regard a number of additional sources are WP:SIGCOV, they mainly merely confirm she held a meeting with the Belarus government. such as [16], [17] and [18]. This one is short and confirms a few biographical details of Gibb. This one is her commenting as a representative of the UK government. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to pass WP:GNG. The controversy may be suitable for discussion on another article, but it's not really about her. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the sources. NYC Guru (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is enough to support her notability in my opinion including coverage of an attempted assassination in Yemen that she survived, and I think ambassadors probably should be considered more notable than not for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources, as needed to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Indefensible. Okoslavia (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is one more source from MENA REPORT via ProQuest [19]. WP:BASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability (with a long note about what trivial type sources don't help). The sources we have seem to provide that at this point. —siro χ o 22:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Indefensible and Siroxo. Sal2100 (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Showdown (rugby union)

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

Fails WP:GNG as I'm not really seeing significant coverage around the event itself, other than mentions and reports of the fixtures. Fails WP:NRIVALRY as again no significant coverage of the matches. In my opinion, not really suitable for an encyclopedic article as it's only really relevant to Saracens, and reads as WP:FANCRUFT. I suggested a redirect to a specific section on Saracens F.C. but was reverted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, and England. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the article is wholly consistent with similar approved articles linked to Premiership Rugby, including The Big Game (rugby union), London Double Header and Slater Cup - none of which the OP has raised an objection to regarding WP:GNG. By the logic spelt out here, The Big Game (rugby union) should be considered WP:FANCRUFT, as it is only really relevant to Harlequin F.C., and Slater Cup is only really relevant to Leicester Tigers and Gloucester Rugby, nor would that meet the threshold of WP:NRIVALRY, as it is not even a year old. Indeed, the coverage of the matches detailed in this article is consistent with, and no less significant, than the matches detailed in these other three articles which, again, the OP has raised no objection to. Therefore, the OP's consideration for what qualifies as notable or significant would seem to be fairly selective, arbitrary and inconsistent with the aforementioned approved articles. If necessary, I would be happy to update this article with further citations to demonstrate the extent of the coverage although, to reiterate, this would be going above and beyond what has already been accepted for both The Big Game (rugby union) and Slater Cup. Lastly, the OP's final statement is not quite accurate - as the article's revision history shows, their action was less a suggestion, and more a blanket removal of the article's entire contents without any discussion. I would respectfully suggest refraining from making such unilateral decisions in future, in cases where there is no clearly no consensus for such an action. House of Laughs (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For all of the reasons outlined in the above reply, and with no objections having been lodged by anyone else, I propose keeping the article, closing this discussion and removing the WP:AfD in the next 24 hours. To further highlight the OP's inconsistent approach to WP:GNG between this article and other approved Premiership Rugby related articles, I cite The Clash (rugby union), which concerns an event that lasted just three years, relates to Bath Rugby only, and the article itself has, at most, 2 meaningful citations. That article, along with The Big Game (rugby union) and Slater Cup, would all be nominated for deletion if we were to follow the OP's interpretation of WP:GNG, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:FANCRUFT in this AfD nomination. Yet, all 3 articles have been widely accepted for years - including by the OP themselves, who previously contributed to The Clash (rugby union) without raising any of the same objections. The OP's nomination of this article for deletion therefore does not seem to be based on WP:GNG, but rather on their personal views on specific clubs. House of Laughs (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is far more GNG related coverage for The Big Game than there is for The Showdown, given its longevity over a period of time. Also the Slater Cup features the same two sides each fixture, and there is coverage of the rivalry between the two sides. Dependent on the outcome of this AfD I will then consider nominations/redirecting for The Clash as I'm not seeing much in relation to that one, but given we have this AfD in process, and the lack of engagement rugby union AfDs get at the moment, another very similar AfD at the same time isn't in the best interests of other editors at this time, given that the outcome of this AfD will likely effect that one. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity was clearly not the defining factor for either The Big Game (rugby union), Slater Cup or The Clash (rugby union) to qualify for WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY. The article for The Big Game was created and reviewed in 2011, when the event was less than 2 years old, and the event has never consistently featured the same 2 teams. Meanwhile, the Slater Cup, as both an event and a rivalry, has existed for all of 6 months. As far as the coverage for each event goes, any cursory Google search would show that both the breadth and the amount of coverage of all of these showpiece event games each year is basically identical (a fact that is borne out in the citations within all of these articles, which frequently draw from the same sources). Given that each of these articles concern very similar annual showpiece event games within the same sports league, to so arbitrarily interpret them as notable or not notable, as this WP:AfD has done, is utterly bizarre. Finally, as a more general point, I think AfD nominations such as this one do nothing for the integrity of WP:GNG, and only serve to dissuade editors from contributing. House of Laughs (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated - As an olive branch, and in the interest of resolving this matter quickly, I have consolidated all of the showpiece fixtures hosted by Saracens F.C. in Premiership Rugby into this article (although The Showdown branding began in 2020, the actual event dates back to 2009, and was branded as Derby Day for many years, with the majority of the fixtures against rivals Harlequin F.C. - all of which is now detailed and sourced within the updated article). As this brings The Showdown article even more in line with The Big Game (rugby union) article, and should finally put to bed any issues you had regarding WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY, I would politely request that you review the latest version, and please consider withdrawing the WP:AfD. House of Laughs (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If others are to !vote here, we might benefit from WP:THREE sources to focus on, especially ones that can address WP:SPORTSEVENT. —siroχo 22:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: If this test would help to expedite the process, I am happy to oblige. To highlight 3 sources that should satisfy the nominator's personal definition of WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY, I submit:

^[1] (Independent coverage on the profile of the two clubs as Premiership Rugby's biggest rivalry)

^[2] (Independent source verifying this fixture's status as setting the world record for a rugby union club match attendance in 2015, which remains a Premiership record)

^[3] (Independent source verifying this fixture's status as setting highest viewership for a Premiership match in history in 2023, which remains a record)
Also, in the interest of consistency, it is important to consider this article in the context of 4 similar, approved articles about other showpiece fixtures in Premiership Rugby – The Big Game (rugby union), Slater Cup, London Double Header and The Clash (rugby union) – to which, I highlight the following:
- None of those 4 articles have required such an extensive test to prove their satisfaction of either WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY as this one;
- None of those 4 articles' current versions have anywhere near the level of citations and demonstration of coverage as this one;
- If we were to treat the nominator's definition of WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY in this AfD as gospel, and apply it consistently, all 4 of those articles would fail and would all be nominated for deletion – yet all 4 have been accepted for a long period of time.
Therefore, it is clear that the nominator has not treated this article on The Showdown – which, to any objective observer, is extremely similar to those other 4 articles – with a consistent approach to WP:GNG. And, to put it in stark terms, if they were being consistent, either all of these articles are acceptable, or none of them are. Given the precedent set by the acceptance of those 4 similar articles over the course of many years, it is only logical that this article is treated the same. House of Laughs (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Why Harlequins v Saracens is English rugby's bitterest rivalry". The Times. 10 June 2022. Retrieved 17 July 2023.
^ "Saracens put on a show in front of world record crowd at Wembley". Eurosport. Retrieved 17 July 2023.
^ "Premiership Rugby smashes TV record with Farrell v Smith showdown". Rugby World. 29 March 2023. Retrieved 11 July 2023.

I'll say weak keep based on the example sources provided and an examination of those in the article. I cannot see the Eurosport source and am not familiar with coverage of rugby union, so I am not confident, but it seems likely there's enough independent coverage in the sources to put together an article without requiring original research. The key for me is that the idea of a rivalry is verifiable and not OR. —siro χ o 21:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramkishan Suthar

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

Fails in WP:GNG , WP:BIO Worldiswide (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO for any biography because the subject of the article doesn't have any notable honours or nominations, no particularly notable contributions, or an entry in any country's national biography. As this biography fails all three points, it is eligible for deletion. All mentions I could find of the subject are trivial: mostly primarily talking about works that he played a part in. I don't see how we could disambig this or merge it, so deletion seems to be the only solution. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your evaluation of the biography article. I understand that the subject lacks notable honors, nominations, and significant contributions, and that the mentions of the subject are primarily related to works they were involved in. I agree that notability is an important criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia.

However, I would like to highlight a few points that could warrant further consideration before proceeding with deletion. While the subject may not have received notable honors or nominations, it's worth exploring whether they have made any significant contributions within their field or industry, even if they are not widely recognized. Additionally, it's important to carefully assess the reliability and independence of the sources used to determine the subject's notability.

Furthermore, although the mentions of the subject may currently appear trivial, it's possible that with additional research and sourcing, a more comprehensive picture of their significance could emerge. It may be worth exploring the potential for expansion and improvement of the article rather than opting for immediate deletion.

Before making a final decision, I encourage engaging in a discussion with other editors to gather diverse perspectives on the article's notability and potential solutions. Collaboration and consensus-building within the Wikipedia community often lead to better outcomes.

Ultimately, I respect the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, and I'm open to considering different viewpoints on this matter. I believe that a well-informed and balanced approach will help us reach the most appropriate resolution for the article in question. Atulkulhari007 (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems that this individual was the editor (the proper editor credit, not assistant or additional etc) for Ab Dilli Dur Nahin (2023 film), a notable film that has multiple reviews that meet WP:ICTFSOURCES. This qualifies the subject for WP:FILMMAKER.3 —siro χ o 07:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am continuously improving the article as I am getting sources. Atulkulhari007 (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*::Keep per Siroxo. Okoslavia (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now can I remove the notice from the article? And how will it go away? Atulkulhari007 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Atulkulhari007 Usually Afd runs for 168 hours and I can see one delete vote. You might want to wait for closing administrator to make their decision. Okoslavia (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I find in a search shows how WP:ANYBIO is met. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:ANYBIO is pretty much never used as an exclusionary criteria. —siro χ o 18:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible UPE promotion. Discussion on my talk page giving me an impression of COI. Okoslavia (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a clear case of COI. Please see my talk. Okoslavia (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can't explain you properly but there is no one promoting here Atulkulhari007 (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have written the article with sufficient sources and information. This user @Siroxo also confirmed that the source appears to be that this person was the editor (not proper editor credit, assistant or extra, etc.) of Dilli Door Nahin Abhi (2023 film), a notable film that has multiple reviews at WP:ICTFSOURCES matches. This makes the theme eligible for WP:FILMMAKER.

And I have seen other articles which have been approved even though they have very few sources. I do not know on the basis of which policy it was done. I do not mean to say that I am doubting the policies of Wikipedia or this article is also correct on the basis of the same policies.

Despite this, if you feel like it, then it is okay. Ultimately, I respect Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I'm open to considering different points of view on the matter. I believe that a well informed and balanced approach will help us to reach the most appropriate solution for the article in question. Atulkulhari007 (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Siroxo. It seems worth noting that the nom and at least one of the delete !votes seem to be misapplying WP:ANYBIO as setting out necessary rather than sufficient criteria for retention. Ordinarily that would lead us back to WP:NBASIC, but WP:FILMMAKER helpfully lets us dispense with the elaborate exercise of finding and weighing sources against NBASIC in order to reach a decision here. I am thankful for Okoslavia's detective work in exposing the UPE shenanigans in this article. But ultimately I don't think the existence of the article constitutes promotional abuse. As long as having the article serves our purpose as an encyclopedia, the UPE-tainted content can be dealt with through appropriate cleanup tags. -- Visviva (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: After some edits to remove puffery, fix some NPOV issues, gratuitous ref-bombing to bad sites, what's left is somewhat "meh" The editing for the film is the best shot for notability, but there's a single cite to a fairly poor quality review, and nothing in the film's article. The short film for the film festival is the next best option, but it's honestly not much. Really need sources that have in-depth coverage of the person, not the work. WP:TOOSOON for me. Ravensfire (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ristorante Machiavelli

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

A restaurant that only gets local coverage/reviews. Would need wider coverage as per WP:AUD to meet GNG or WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator) as the topic has been covered by multiple independent and reliable sources. This is a continuation of restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily (my user talk page is littered with notifications for similar entries which have been kept following AfD discussions). Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local and regional news sources as well as books and other industry outlets, providing in-depth coverage of the business. I've asked the nominator many times to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. This entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm looking at the sources, and they are all either local reviews or listings in somewhat larger works. If that is all a restaurant has, it does not distinguish it from hundreds of thousands of others. I could write a similar article about a dozen restaurants in the town closest to where I live (which is about 5% of the size of Seattle). None of those are notable either; they have no significant history and are not mentioned in sources that are not restaurant listings. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article significantly, but I haven't even touched The Seattle Times archives or completed a library search for other newspaper and book sources. I am curious if you searched for sources other than those already used as citations? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first block of 13 are really poor references. Its all ultra-local coverage and no indication its notable. Its all the same kind of local reviews. Not only does it fail WP:SIRS and WP:GNG. Its also fails WP:AUD, Another very poor effort with something has no historical value. My local restuarants are built before 1720, which is the newest. Under the criteria you apply, I could effectively put in every pub and restuarant in the UK into Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was easy to find national coverage of this restaurant to meet WP:AUD, and I have edited the article accordingly. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple article sources easily meet WP:SIRS and WP:AUD. Is "historical value" that scope creep requires listed anywhere as a requirement in WP:NORG? --Rhetorical question. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, GNG compliant. Nice improvements. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the article has basically been rewritten since the nomination. Please review new additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:NOTTRAVEL. It's written accidentally promotionally as a synthesis of WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. Clearly fails WP:NCORP, which trumps GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Since it is covered by Bon Appétit & Lonely Planet nationally, & out-of-state Daily Journal of Commerce, this passes WP:AUD, which states at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. WP:AUD is part of WP:NCORP, so the arguments that if fails that do not work for me. Peaceray (talk) 22:58, 17 July 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!} 18:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neutral on this. Probably scrapes a GNG pass. Sourcing is better than Post Alley Pizza. The reception section requires a severe pruning to remove the promotional dross. Rupples (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and tag for cleanup. As explained by Peaceray above, this passes AUD, and Bon Appetit alone would satisfy the strict requirement of [a]t least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source. And based on the abundant other reviews I don't think there's any question that it passes the other elements of NCORP, viz. ha[ving] been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I don't really see the NOTTRAVEL argument here -- the existing article may have some unencyclopedic bits, but it doesn't seem to me that it is wholly or irreparably unencyclopedic (and TBH I'd guess the overemphasis on reviews probably comes from defensive editing to pass NCORP), so that's more of a cleanup issue. My keep is weak mostly because although the technical requirements of the rules are met, I'm just not presuaded this is the best way to approach this encyclopedically. I'd much rather have a more full-featured List of restaurants in Seattle (or sublists) and merge all these articles there. But as no plausible merge target currently exists and we face a simple question of whether to include encyclopedic information about this restaurant as a standalone article or not at all, I'm not seeing a case for deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the sourcing in the article is sufficient to meet GNG. Arguments that similar sourcing would allow many such articles to be written about restaurants in smaller towns than Seattle aren't convincing. If that's true then those articles shouldn't be deleted either, or perhaps it's a rhetorical exaggeration, as "local coverage" means very different things depending on the locations. Seattle metro has more than 4 million people, roughly the population of Panama. Regional coverage there carries some weight. Central and Adams (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ per sources identified. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen L. Born

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

does not pass notability requirements Medarduss (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs someone to evaluate the references on the German article. - Indefensible (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely unnotable, no widespread coverage at all besides his own personal pages. May be self-promotional. GuardianH (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there is a large amount of coverage (lots of negative coverage, some standard media interviews) but might fall under WP:BLP1E as outside of interviews it's all about one scandal afaict. eg. [20][21]. However, the subject had an interview as recently as [22] 2020. As such they would not meet BLP1E, hence my lean towards keep. —siro χ o 22:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The de:Jürgen Born article has some sources as well, and is much more in-depth.. —siro χ o 23:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As suggested by Indefensible, I've taken a look at the sources in the German article. Note that in what follows, I'm also including sources I found during my research that are not in the German article. This article in Welt is definitely in-depth coverage, and it's quite a reputable publication. I would also say that this is coverage of Born more so than the scandal itself. This article on the Werder Bremen scandal covers Born quite in-depth as well. This is pretty good biographical coverage of Born, another GNG source. This is some further reporting on the scandal and Born. This is an article in the Spiegel from when Born assumed his position at Werder Bremen (1999), and this article is more coverage of him long after the scandal. All together, there's more than enough here to fulfill the notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC, and a pretty good article could be written from this information. For future reference: This is a timeline of the corruption scandal, which might be useful if the article is not deleted. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @GuardianH as a lot of good sources have been found. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Iran gasoline export to Venezuela

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Article created as a product of recentism, shown by the fact that there have not been significant updates for over three years. The shipments have not affcted the fuel shortages in Venezuela as a whole, and any important details of the event are already covered in said article or at the Iran-Venezuela relations article. NoonIcarus (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, Economics, Iran, and Venezuela. NoonIcarus (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that this is WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This concern appeared as soon as the article started and Iran-Venezuela relations was the better place, however concerns over the impact of this news were difficult to estimate. Now we know it was just WP:RECENTISM.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I really don't agree with those saying that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply here. At the time, Iran sent "its biggest fleet yet of tankers to Venezuela in defiance of U.S. sanctions"[23], making the incident notable enough for having a standalone article. The importance of this incident has also been noted over the three years span in reliable books like 2021, 2021, 2021, 2022, and 2022. If reliable sources matter, which is the most important criteria for AFD, the page needs to be kept. Maybe it is better for the page to be updated using the mentioned sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mhhossein (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

At first glance, all of these references are passing mentions of the crisis in Venezuela as a whole, and none of them delve in long lasting consequences. That is further proof that any notable content can be covered in other articles, as it already is. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are dealing with both deep sources and passing mentions. Deep reliable sources are required to prove the notability. Plus, the very fact that the gas export in 2020 is still being covered by academic books shows that the subject is not merely a NEWS or so. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Hogo-2020 (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained why these two are not applicable here. Despite the OP's claim, the subject has been covered by reliable books like 2021, 2021, 2021, 2022, and 2022. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the last comments, the mentions are not related to notability as much as just coverage. A traffic accident or a robbery can have significant coverage, even nationwide or by academic sources, but at the end lasting impact is what determines notability. This is probably the same reason why these books at the end are not about the shipment, but rather about other topics: "US Energy Diplomacy in the Caspian Sea Basin", "The World Almanac of Islamism 2021", "Sanctions as War", "Iranian-Saudi Rivalry Since 1979", and "The New Cold War, China, and the Caribbean". --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abderrahmane Lounici

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

Notability MrBauer24 (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many people in the UK knew mr Abderrahmane, but very little information was shared about him. Sources used were from the British Broadcasting Corperation. As someone who lived in leyton for a long period of time, he was a well known individual. VICE news and Ladbible also confirmed that his name was indeed Abderrahmane Lounici. Mrm1235 (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the sources are provided from the BBC, more sources will be provided towards the future. Mrm1235 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Need to include the sources in the article. The onus is on you (the article creator) to prove notability. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i already included the sources in the article, if you actually went on the page you would see this is true. Furthermore, there is only about 2 newspaper articles about him. So your in the wrong. Mrm1235 (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source does not cover most of the information included in the article. For example, the name "Richi" is not mentioned once in the article. Neither is "Mali Boys". Nor the Arabic translation. Drill is not mentioned at all. etc. Most of the articles information is therefore original research, which isn't permitted on Wikipedia. In addition, you haven't properly referenced the information you're using that source for. Further more, one source in and of itself does not prove notability, which is a requirement for Wikipedia articles. If there are only 2 articles on the internet about this person, then he most likely is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I understand this is no doubt frustrating. I kindly recommend you check out some resources for new editors, WP:FIRST and WP:PRIMER. For what it's worth, I am familiar with the topic. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability requires passage of WP:GNG, which requires a lot more than just one source. We're not looking just for verification that he exists, we're looking for evidence that the things he did have been externally validated as having enduring significance of the people will still be looking for information about it ten years from now variety, and nothing here has been shown to satisfy that standard. Bearcat (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

No such proof that China has "invaded" Ukraine. At best this is Crystal ball and propaganda. At worst this is complete and total fake news as this hasn't happened. CaribDigita (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CaribDigita (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom is inaccurate as the article does not claim that China participated in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Rather, this is an article about how China has reacted to the invasion and what attitudes have been taken by the Chinese government, media, and citizens toward it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you go back to March 2022 when this article was written, the terminology at the time - at least the buzz phrase used by the media - was "China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine" So I would not quite call it "Crystal ball and propaganda", as that's how the general media saw it then. — Maile (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first link that turns up: "SOAS" is just an event title. By "a public research university in London, England, and a member institution of the federal University of London."

Those are all the same three sources over and over.

First one is a government owned agency of the UK.

Second one is a government owned agency of Canada.

The third is just J.P. Morgan investor.

And the rest are mirrors of the first three podcast and all.

And actually that's the very epitome of propaganda (Definition @ Merriam-Webster).

Is there any truth that China is *in* Ukraine per the title "Chana & the Russian **invasion** of Ukraine"? CaribDigita (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don’t understand this nom at all. It seems obvious but here are recent news refs covering the topic: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. The topic meets GNG. // Timothy :: talk 05:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator seems to have misunderstood the article title. It's not parsed as "(China and Russia's) invasion of Ukraine" but "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)". -Ljleppan (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- How many countries are invading Ukraine? Is my point. "AND" is a conjunction. It should probably be the 'Role of (X-country) in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine' that would be more grammatically correct. CaribDigita (talk) CaribDigita (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only country that is invading Ukraine is Russia. By using "Role of China in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine", it suggests that China is playing a *role* and are *directly involved* in the invasion of Ukraine; it is even more misleading than the original title and defeats your main argument. There is nothing Grammatically incorrect or improper about "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)". Vincenty846 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It makes it sound as though Chinese soldiers are on the ground in Ukraine. Which I haven't seen any evidence of? Have you? CaribDigita (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, it doesn't. Just because the title "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)" sounds that way to *YOU*, doesn't mean that it is true for others. There is *nothing* in the article that states what you are suggesting (i.e. "Chinese soldiers are on the ground in Ukraine"), because factually it is incorrect and false information; which mind you does not belong on any Wikipedia article.

You can try and twist the words with your own opinions and ask as many rhetorical questions as you want; but it still doesn't change the fact that "China and (the Russian invasion of Ukraine)" is proper and grammatically correct. Vincenty846 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems like the nominator has misunderstood the title of the article. The nominator’s argument that “No such proof that China has "invaded" Ukraine” is irrelevant to the title and content of the article because the article is about the *reactions and responses* of China to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. There is nothing in the article that states nor suggests that China has invaded Ukraine with Russia. There is also an article on United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, does that mean that the U.S. is also involved with Russia and invading Ukraine?-Vincenty846(talk) 12:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article title is being misinterpreted. We also have article titled Anonymous, Collective responsibility in Russia, Iran, Lithuania, Religion, United States, and Wikipedia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, none of which are implied to have invaded.[29] And there are other variations with “in” or “X-ian involvement in,” “in the Russo-Ukrainian War,” etcetera. If the problem is an inappropriate title, then an RM is appropriate, not an AFD. —Michael Z. 22:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:SNOW close Per above comments. Definitely a notable topic. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 22:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Ministership of Arvind Kejriwal

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

Addition of separate articles: First Kejriwal ministry, Second Kejriwal ministry, Third Kejriwal ministry & there no separate articles for other Indian chief ministers. DSP2092^talk 16:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, India, and Delhi. DSP2092^talk 16:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - According to per above nomination. ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 10:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. - this should be viewed as a PROD (not quite a BLPPROD). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Lafazanos

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for actors is not satisfied just because the article lists roles, and requires external validation of the significance of his roles through reliable source coverage about him and/or noteworthy acting awards. But the only "reference" cited here at all is a Q&A interview in which he's answering questions about himself in the first person on a non-notable blog, which is not a reliable source or a carrier of notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If anyone is interested in working on this page in Draft space, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of American children's books

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

This list is a mere copy of the related category at the time of its creation in 2015 without the subcategories (including American children's novels and other significant omissions), plus some random books since added. No one since my original suggestion in 2015 has made any attempt to improve the page and it has very few page views. Robina Fox (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hopelessly broad list. Dronebogus (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This is not an inappropriate topic for a list. It also doesn't have to be "hopelessly broad". It's already limited to a specific country, as WP:SALAT suggests in cases of large-scope list topics, and it could easily be divided into sections in accordance with genre, year of publication, or some other criterion. Since this list contains only notable entries, I don't think WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. So far, no policy-based argument has been made to show that this topic is intrinsically inappropriate for a standalone list. The fact that the list is currently out of date is not really a good reason for deletion either. The next step, then, is to establish standalone list notability as per WP:LISTN. So, have American children's books been discussed as a group by reliable sources? In short, yes. I quickly found an academic article on it, as well as this article. Leonard S. Marcus, who probaby qualifies as a subject-matter expert, wrote Minders of Make-Believe: Idealists, Entrepreneurs, and the Shaping of American Children's Literature. Multicultural and Ethnic Children's Literature in the United States by Donna Gilton is another book on the topic from a subject-matter expert. There is also this article, though I'm not sure of the reliability of that publication. Encyclopedia Britannica has this, but that's a tertiary source; still, it can contribute to the understanding that this is a notable topic and appropriate for a list. This BBC coverage is also an appropriate source for establishing notability. I'm sure more could be found, but the point is made: the topic "American children's books/literature" has received significant coverage as a group from reliable sources, so the list fulfills the relevant notability requirements. I'm not sure, then, what remains as a reason for deletion. The list topic is 1. generally appropriate for Wikipedia and 2. appropriately limited in scope and through selection criteria and 3. notable. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In principle this is a fine subject for a list, but as it stands it is hopelessly inadequate and misleading. It gives no information not given in the category: no date, no author, no genre, no setting. It doesn't include, to take a few books at random, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, The Cat in the Hat, The Giver, The Lightning Thief, The Very Hungry Caterpillar, The Secret of the Old Clock, Antiracist Baby. If deletion is not the answer, it should be gutted and started over as a more selective list with actual information on each book and a link to the category in the lead. As it is, it is actually anti-encyclopedic. Robina Fox (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that would fulfill the purpose of a list; a list with a higher threshold of entry than notability and with extensive information on each entry would probably be better placed in Children's_literature#United_States, or in a standalone article on that topic, which has been suggested. I don't think that information like author, genre, setting, etc. is appropriate for a list with only notable entries (i.e. easily accessible in-depth information on each entry), but that is better debated on the talk page of the list. I agree that this isn't a particularly helpful list in its current state, but it would be much better to keep it around and improve it. To that end, I wouldn't oppose draftification in principle, but that's really only necessary if the current version of the list is so bad as to be positively damaging to readers' understanding; is that what you mean by anti-encyclopedic? Actualcpscm (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Imagine if someone tried to write an article on American children's literature using the current list as a starting point. An encyclopedia should provide basic significant information. On notability, I'll just say that if your standard is the existence of an article, what function does a list serve that a category does not? I love categories myself – I've made lots of them – but I expect more of a list. Well, I'm not sure this is contributing to the deletion discussion, so I'll leave it there. Robina Fox (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your judgement is more informed than mine on that; draftify for improvement would be an acceptable outcome imo, but it‘s a workable list topic in principle. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:American children's books exist. Should have it done like all the other lists at Category:Lists of children's books, with columns for useful information. Dream Focus 11:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is absolutely hopelessly broad. The source analysis above misses the point – none of those would be used as sources for this and no one is suggesting the concept of children's literature as a whole is not notable, so if you want to write an article about American children's literature as suggested above be my guest. But that's no reason to have a bullet-pointed list that could have several thousands of items. Category:American children's books has over 5,000 books in its subcategories, and just duplicating (just a small fraction of) that in this way is not the way to go. Existence of a category does not inherently mean an identical list is acceptable, and with a lack of selection criteria or other analysis, this is simply too indiscriminate. What's even more ridiculous is that List of children's books made into feature films has more books than this page! This is just too broad to be workable. The other items in Category:Lists of children's books have much narrower scopes. Reywas92^Talk 14:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reason to duplicate the category with a manually updated list; that's a colossal waste of time. Fix the category and its subcategories, and delete this page. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for rescoping and improvement; I still think the topic is principally fine, but I see the issues with scope and the state of the article probably warrant removal from the article namespace. I have been convinced! Actualcpscm (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually draftification is reserved for relatively new articles and lists. This list has existed since 2015. But if you're really interested in working on fixing the list, maybe you should clearly state that. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Weak refocus: If we were to list all the titles that qualify, we'd be here all century! There's a reason for the already existing Category:American children's books--or better yet, the "Juvenile" sections at Open Library and WorldCat. However, this might leave the door open for a similarly titled container overview, "Lists of American children's books"--but even that would take a lot more maintenance and commitment. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If nothing else, this is NOT a list of American Children's Books, but of ACB that have Wikipedia articles. Next, what makes a book "American"? Published in the US? - no, that would include Alice in Wonderland which is republished in the US. Author is American? (Do we always know?) What if author is non-US but illustrator is, or vice-versa? This is a list that cannot be defined usefully and that is truly unlikely to be maintained. This kind of categorization is exactly what the categories are for. I just wish that the categories were publicized more. Lamona (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alice in Wonderland is in category:British children's novels. If the writer is American, then their books are American books. If British then they are British books. Dream Focus 09:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Estonian Shipping Company. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Aberg (ship)

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

Tagged for notability since May. No indications of significant coverage in secondary sources after a basic BEFORE search, only primary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Estonia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As mentioned in the nomination, a search turns up no appropriate sources to establish notability, including under its other names. I don't think a redirect or merge are warranted, since a lack of reliably verifiable information about the history of this vessel makes it unclear where the merge/redirect target would be – the source in the article right now doesn't look particularly good. If someone figures that out in the course of this discussion, I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting to an article about, say, the shipping company that verifiably operated the vessel. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Estonian Shipping Company per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. I found some passing mentions. Sufficient for a redirect, NOT for keep! gidonb (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Clear consensus Nosebagbear (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mickaela Skaric

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

Doesn't get a presumption of notability from WP:NBAD as reaching the final of a 2016 BWF International Series does not meet that criterion. Also worth noting that that tournament only had a semi-final and final so reaching the final is not as impressive as it might seem. More importantly, Skaric needs to comply with WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC to have an article. The current sources fall way short. In my searches, including a Chilean search, I found only trivial mentions in El Deportero, Guyana Times and Stabroek News. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG. zoglophie 09:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bedivere (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. The sourcing here is not even remotely reliable enough to verify that the topic even really exists in a meaningful sense.‎. Steven Walling • talk 07:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual disability in animals

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

The concept of "intellectual disability in animals" does not seem to exist. It is not a topic studied in the context of eg veterinary medicine or biology. There are no reliable sources in the article and no such sources could be found or have been provided. See the section Talk:Intellectual_disability_in_animals#Does_the_concept_of_"intellectual_disability"_exist_in_animals? for further discussion. TempusTacet (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine, Psychiatry, and Psychology. TempusTacet (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous article. Cites the websites Cuteness.com and onlinepsychologydegree.info. Probably a hoax. I can find reliable sources on animal models of intellectual disability (in humans) but that's not the same thing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - did a search on JSTOR, all results lead to intellectual disability in humans, found nothing about intellectual disability in animals. Doesn't look like it's something that's widely studied. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Agree with nom. Article appears to be a hoax. User:Let'srun 18:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, looks like a hoax. Lijil (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nominator and above. Horrific sourcing about anything vaguely medical is intolerable. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If my sources were horrific I’m sorry and I would never on purpose use any third class sources on any Wikipedia. If the article was not that good please erase and I’ll never create this page on Wikipedia again. You have my words. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 17:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I'm not sure that it's a hoax, however, it's definitely borderline. Tropical Storm Angela is the page creator and seems to support deletion as well... Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 23:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of .hack characters. ✗plicit 14:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atoli

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

Like Ovan, despite being sourced and well written. This article also mostly build up with trivia articles/sources like passing mentions from games reviews. It has zero WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only good source I could find is this but .hack is not that explored when compared to other RPGs in the West so I guess there is not much else to search.Tintor2 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impresive scraping of mentions in passing, but fails WP:SIGCOV. It would be a shame to loose this - I recommend SOFTDELETE and merger of reception to the List of .hack characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of .hack characters. There does not seem to be WP:SIGCOV about this character - if there is, let me know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as WP:ATD. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV, but might have some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I really like her hat, but there's just not enough. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evil entities in Christianity

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

Appears to be completely WP:SYNTH. PepperBeast (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible and Christianity. PepperBeast (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pepperbeast:WP:SYNTH has a clear definition of "Synthesis of Published Material". I fail to see how "Evil entities in Christianity" satisfies it. Please explain. Peter Brown (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a place for an argument about policy, but the topic of "Evil Entities in Chrisitianity" is the author's synthesis of various Biblical and non-Biblical sources, none of which is actually about "evil entities". PepperBeast (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Evil" should be identified by its Christian definition (or definitions) rather than saying meaninglessly that it "exists." Likewise, "sin" is not defined but is said to exist and to be personified by entities. Evil exists, sin exists, but it is not evident in what sense the entities exist "in Christianity." Are these "entities" metaphorical personifications, according to the Christian imagination, or do Christians believe that they are real?

My first objection to the article is that it does not define any of the terms of its title.

It's unclear where these entities are found "in" Christianity. Are we talking about "in" Christian scripture, doctrine, tradition, literature, art, or an article in Christianity Today? Most of the cited material is Biblical, but an extra-biblical back-story stands behind the interpretation, such as what is proposed by Seventh-Day Adventist writers, for example. The article doesn't say. What is clear is that if you can find Christianity, you will find these characters there.

That is my second objection. It is not written like an encyclopedia article but like notes from a visit to a nature park called "Christianity," which is populated with this and that sort of creature. The Satan exhibit is especially interesting

In fact, the guide is so fascinated by the devil that whatever other entity is met on the tour, there's really only one highlight, and that's the Devil in Christianity.

This is my third objection. It is nothing more than an expansion of Devil in Christianity, which has many of the same problems. But assuming that article should be kept, this article does not substantively expand on that topic and, therefore, should be deleted because it is redundant.

However, I really like the artwork that has been collected in this and the related articles. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article I fully see and agree with these points, and I wish for it do be deleted as well. RileyXeon (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the article creator has okay'd deleting the page, other editors have contributed to it so CSD G7 is not eligible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the discussion above, especially the article's creator's concurrence to deletion.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to userspace if the author prefers. There is very little here that wouldn't work better in Devil in Christianity or Christian demonology. 'Allegorical representations of evil in Christian texts' could be another topic but it would need sources addressing the topic as a whole and not just a synthesis of examples to be viable as a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lawson Lunde

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

Non-notable: out of the sources in the article, neither can contribute to passing WP:GNG (1: database entry, not significant coverage, 2: interview, not independent). During a WP:BEFORE, only one source came up that might satisfy contributing to GNG: [30]. However, this is a local news source with a writer that may possibly be a relative of Lunde's (same last name). Based on this lack of sourcing, I think this fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NBIO. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The one sources they cite reads like a family produced obituary and the only ones I found on google were publishers' blurbs on sites selling his sheet music. Though there is a review of his Sonata [31] from an academic site. We just don't have enough independent, reliable sources for an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vik Edwin Stoll

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

Failed judicial nominee that does not pass WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently basically a CV, clearly fails WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG as article creator. Safiel (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominee for a position that he did not get. No sources about him other than his nomination. Lamona (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas L. Halkowski

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

Failed judicial nominee that does not meet WP:GNG and has a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Delaware. Let'srun (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG as article creator. Safiel (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominee for a position that he did not get. No sources about him other than his nomination. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the Battlefield for My Lord

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

Non-notable song from a non notable album. This hymm got no hits to significant coverage in reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Ethel Caffie-Austin, since the sources do not establish notability (not significant coverage). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears that the title is sometimes simply "I'm on the Battlefield". This is because the hymn is listed in many directories of hymns that can be performed during services, and they all have their own interpretations. I can find no further reporting or analysis of the song as an item with its own encyclopedic information. Also, since it has been recorded by several different people, a redirect to Ms. Caffie-Austin is not workable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nir Poraz

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

Tragic death, but Poraz is not notable. Any relevant and properly sourced information can be included in Abduction and killing of Nachshon Wachsman, where I have added an image of him in the "Search and rescue" section. Mooonswimmer 12:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of many people killed in this conflict. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Topics like this are typically required to meet WP:LASTING, rather than the more liberal standard of WP:GNG, simply because any early death will receive local news coverage that Wikipedia may not be the right place for. Nobody has made a substantive argument that the coverage here passes that standard, and I'll note in passing that NY Post is a deprecated sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Madison Brooks

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Louisiana. Joeykai (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable and has sufficient sources, full disclosure, I am the creator of this article. Eric Carpenter (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A WP:BEFORE check comes up with multiple sources beyond those already in the article. Certainly could be expanded but that is no reason to delete it. [[32]][[33]] User:Let'srun 14:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 16:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer and WP:LASTING. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Montiel

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

References provided fail to establish WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC as there is no significant in-depth coverage of Montiel contained within. From the database sources available, WP:NBAD doesn't seem to be met either as her only 'claim' to notability is a runner up in a tournament at the lowest level of the tour, the 2016 BWF Future Series. According to BWF, she only ever won one match, which doesn't give me confidence that WP:SIGCOV can be found. An Argentine source search yields nothing better than what we already have and nor do Google searches. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG. zoglophie 09:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goddy Nnadi

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

All positions that looks political are for the Rotary Club. Available coverages are press releases. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eternal Champion. Discussion and analysis of the sources supports the conclusion that there is insufficient coverage of Erekosë qua Erekosë to justify a standalone article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erekosë

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable book character. This appears to be an article fit for Fandom, not Wikipedia. The previous AfD (from 2018) yielded a few book sources but to me this does not appear sufficient for WP:GNG, as they focus on the books rather than the character. All references in the article are to the book series the character appears in. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eternal Champion - as with 5 years ago, it does not cite any secondary sources and no improvements have been made. This WP:OR and WP:ALLPLOT article is unencyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There are no secondary sources for this character. QuicoleJR (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's blatant nonsense. this is secondary, just not reliable. I just picked it as the first non-Wikipedia ghit for the character name to illustrate the fallacy of broad, universal pronouncements such as this. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FANDOM is such a bad source I consider it nonexistent, but the sources you gave in the last AFD convince me here. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with 5 years ago, WP:NEXIST has been met. The fact that noone bothered to incorporate the sources illustrated in the last AFD is not an argument against keeping it. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said they're insufficient for notability, imho, not that the current state of the article is the reason to delete it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? Can you link them? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Jclemens 5 years ago. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Notable and sourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Eternal Champion (novel). That's a lot of "keeps" above with no source analysis. Since the article cites no reliable, secondary sources, let's look back to the last AfD. All sources cited there discuss Erekosë in the context of the Eternal Champion novel, therefore we should cover Erekosë proportionately in our article on the topic. In doi:10.1007/978-1-137-07657-1_11, Erekosë is only mentioned in context of plot, with no analysis specific to the character, independent from plot context. czar 21:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Analysis specific to Erekosë has been found as discussed below. Daranios (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are 10 references on the page, but these are all stories by Michael Moorcock in the Eternal Champion series. The information drawn from these falls short of WP:NOTPLOT which states that Wikipedia treats creative works ... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. The reference to these is plot and not encyclopaedic discussion. They are essentially to be discounted as primary sources. So what we have left at this time are the sources raised in the previous AfD. Two of these were found, but the suggestion is that this was a non exhaustive list. If there are more, we should consider them. However, looking at these two we have:
Scroggins, Mark (23 December 2015). Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy and the World's Pain. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-4766-2417-4.
Hoey, Michael (2000). "Disguising Doom: A Study of the Linguistic Features of Audience Manipulation in Michael Moorcock's The Eternal Champion". Imagining Apocalypse: Studies in Cultural Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan UK: 151–165. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-07657-1_11.

So Scroggins (2015) mentions the subject throughout. He says, in the introduction,

“he cleverly interwove the otherwise disparate worlds and quests of a whole stable of heroes: Urlik, Erekosë (the Eternal Champion), Corum Jhaelen ...

That is Erekosë is identified up front with the Eternal Champion, although it clearly is more involved than that. Yet the nuance is about plot. What the author does not do is to look at Erekosë and discuss the character as a concept, discussing development, design, reception, significane or influence. Rather it is the concept of the Eternal Champion that gains such treatment. Mentions of Erekosë in this work are all about the specific plot element. An example:

“John Daker has not merely gone to bed John Daker and awoken Erekosë, but—as The Eternal Champion’s sequel Phoenix in Obsidian will demonstrate more explicitly—has awoken to his own destiny as the self-conscious embodiment of the Eternal Champion, the occupier of that subject-position who is able to recall his own previous incarnations, and to feel the weight of the endless battles he is constantly reborn to fight.”

So here Erekosë, along with John Daker, is the name of the character, and the concept being discussed is the Eternal Champion.

What then of (Hoey, 2000)? Hoey's abstract begins:

Michael Moorcock’s The Eternal Champion (1970) has a simple enough plot. Humans on a parallel Earth call to their aid an eternal champion, Erekosë, to help them rid the world of the Evil Ones, the Eldren

The title of the paper is indicative of the content. The paper is discussing the writing of Moorcock, using the concept and sequence of the Eternal Champion as its source material. That Erekosë is the name of the champion is incidental to the thesis of the paper, and, indeed the context of the chosen source material. Per czar, there is no analysis of the specific character of Erekosë here. The mentions are again specifically about plot.

So on this source analysis, I think we are left with nothing. A redirect to Eternal Champion would clearly be sensible, but I see nothing to indicate a keep. Before posting that as a !vote, I would ask if there are any other sources we should be considering, as Jclemens inidicated the posted sources were not exhaustive. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: From the pages I can see in Google Books I agree with the analysis on the book. From the two first pages I can see of the paper I have to disagree: Both the title and the content do not refer to Moorcock's concept of the Eternal Champion, but rather the specific novel The Eternal Champion and its main character. The paper acknowledges that Erekosë is one incarnation of the Eternal Champion, but that's it. Everything else is specific to the Erekosë from that one book. Like him being a metaphor for the nuclear apocalypse. Daranios (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Hoey, 2000) is a chapter in Imagining Apocalypse, which you can borrow from Open Library here: [34]. It is at page 151. The abstract just reproduces the start of the chapter and the chapter itself is definitely a study of Moorcock's writing technique using a large data corpus to analyse linguistics. On that score I stand by what I said, that the paper is not about Erekosë. It is about Moorcock's writing technique. However, on page 152, we read:

My interest in this book, however, lies elsewhere, namely in how Moorcock succeeds in portraying a hero who is unremittingly destructive and commits two great acts of genocide and yet does not turn into a villain.

And herein lies a small amount of analysis that is also mirrored in your Black Gate source. Because the reason that Hoey is looking at this book is because, in the character of Erekosë, there is an incarnation of the eternal champion who commits two genocides and yet is not treated as evil. As you say, it is this incarnation that interests Hoey. He is interested in how this is carried off linguistically, but it is relevant to the thesis that Erekosë has done something we would generally be inclined to disapprove of (genocide of the human race). The character's actions are important to his choice of subject material in conducting the analysis. So, to run this through GNG, we have here and below two reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The question is whether they reach the threshold of significance. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. so Hoey is relevant. Yet we are still left with the question as to whether we can write an article that discusses the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. These sources are not really enough for that. We have a character and any page on the character is going to be almost all plot, even with these sources. Almost, but not entirely. I expect that Erekosë would better be dealt with on the page of the Eternal Champion, which, as you say, is in poor shape. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: In general I agree. One additional piece of analysis rather than plot summary in Hoey is the embodiment of real-world contemporary fears of a nuclear apocalypse in the universal destroyer Erekosë with his radioactive sword. I expect all analysis taken together might be enough to produce an article on Erekosë beyond stub-length (as usual balanced by a reasonable amount of plot summary + publication history). I am unsure if that would be better treated wholly within the Eternal Champion article or not, so I will refrain from !voting here and let others decide. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my lack of !vote up to this point also reflects my own uncertainty. I think my preferred outcome is a redirect with Eternal Champion. I think that places the information we have within a context it can be encyclopaedically discussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another secondary source is the Black Gate article Erekosë and Me, which has both plot summary and commentary on this specific incarnation of the Eternal Champion. I could see this information used either in our separate article here or the Eternal Champion overview article, which is not in great shape. Daranios (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That WordPress blog does not show any hallmarks of source reliability. czar 08:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Black Gate is not a blog but a fantasy magazine covering both fiction and non-fiction, according to the The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (and the Wikipedia article). Daranios (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its former incarnation as a print magazine can be judged on its own merits, but its current incarnation is no different from a personal blog in lacking hallmarks of reliability: a site fact-checking policy, a masthead of professional editors, recognition by peers as reliable for statements of fact. czar 03:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eternal Champion (which as a parent article has huge plot problems itself) for WP:ALLPLOT. Notability (claimed or real) is irrelevant if this topic wasn't, isn't and likely won't be covered encyclopedicly here. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgeureka: Isn't that exactly WP:NOEFFORT, an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion? Anyway, now that secondary sources with some non-plot information have been identified, you are very welcome to just fix the problem that it likely won't be covered encyclopedicly here. Daranios (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the argument that if you remove all unencyclopedic content as per WP:NOTPLOT/WP:ALLPLOT, which in this case means removing everything, you may as well redirect the article until someone comes along who actually wants to add something encyclopedic. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But if your argument is based on WP:ALLPLOT, the guidance this essay gives us to deal with such a "bad article" which "little more than a synopsis of the plot" is not to remove all content. It rather says that it should "be improved to provide more balanced coverage", because "A good encyclopedia article about a work of fiction will almost always include a brief synopsis of the major points of the plot". So the plot summary here may need trimming, but not wholesale deletion. Also, I think the publication history should be preserved. Daranios (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, a close as redirect will preserve publication history, and that history can, of course, be referred to by any editor in the future, either on this page or, by attributed copywithin, on another page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1, 2, 3. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources only underscore the above source analysis, that Erekose as a concept is only discussed within context of Moorcock's oeuvre (ref 1) or the Eternal Champion cycle (ref 2) but not independently as the subject of analysis. Ref 3 is straight plot analysis, in which Erekose is incidental. These sources support a redirect rather than a dedicated article for the character. czar 08:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment of the sources. There is discussion of this character specifically and how he differs from the other incarnations of the Eternal Champion in the other 2 sources. "Erekose himself remains the only avatar of the Eternal Champion actually conscious of his enforced desitny..." (pp. 492-3)
Yes, I said that Ref 2 discusses Erekose within context of the Eternal Champion cycle. It's content that one would expect to find within the parent article on the Eternal Champion novel or cycle. It would need wider and more coverage specific to the character to warrant a summary style split-out. czar 03:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I am not unsympathetic to the claims this topic may be notable, but we had years for someone to try to start a section on analysis/reception. Having done so for many articles I care about, well, the ball is in the court of keepers, b/c so far I see here and it the prior AfD vagues claims that this topic is discussed in source A, B and C. I glanced and I see plot summaries. Sure, it was just a glance. Maybe there is analysis there. If so, take a bit of time and add few sentences of analysis to this article and ping me and I'll gladly vote keep. Until that happens, we have a plot summary that does not merit being kept outside of a redirect. Again, I'd prefer to see this rescued, but I have nor time nor will to do it myself here (I just expanded the relevant section in G'Kar and my time to edit Wiki today has just run out). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eternal Champion. I have reviewed the sources provided here, and there are decently reliable sources that have substantive literary analysis in them. However, the analyses I have seen have to do with either the narrative arc of Moorcock's books or with the arc of the Eternal Champion as a character; and are thus better handled at those articles. Covering fictional subjects in an encyclopedic manner does not mean dredging up every fragment that mentions them and sticking them into an article; it means summarizing the analyses at logical titles, which can certainly include articles about specific fictional characters, but does not in this case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Clearly not being deleted but feel arguments to keep on the award are probably going to need a guideline level discussion before they become authoritative given that we do seem to delete quite a lot of the winners. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Zarib

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

Unremarkable former child actor who's only claim seems to be winning a child actor award aged 12. No evidence of further film participation or notability from existing credit. Fails WP:NACTOR. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They do not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Qcne (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say "unremarkable", although he might not pass Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. He did win a national film award in the eighth most populous country in the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything that would suggest this person is remarkable or otherwise noteworthy, as you latterly note. I guess the outcome of this would determine if we should look at other actor articles on that list also. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the question should be asked as follows: does Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Child Artist meet WP:ANYBIO's criteria? I'm not sure. Deckkohl (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have articles about every recipient of an Academy Juvenile Award. Even those, like Ivan Jandl and Vincent Winter, who have little or no sourcing beyond an obituary saying they won it. This suggests that the community believes that award meets WP:ANYBIO. Is the Bangladeshi award different? Notability is not temporary, so if they're notable for a performance as a child actor, they needn't continue to act or continue to receive coverage. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This person has received well-known and significant award in the field of film in Bangladesh. Please see WP:ANYBIO.≈ Farhan «Talk» 05:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I think some of these comments here are advocating Keeping this article without stating that opinion in BOLD font. The discussion seems to rest on the question, is winning Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Child Artist enough to establish GNG? Looking over the list on that page of previous winners, my guesstimate is about half of them have Wikipedia articles, likely based on future accomplishments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: My thinking is that if an award is notable, then those receiving the award are notable. Particularly in the arts where future contributions from the subject seem likely. CaseArmitage (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would suggest that every category from the most important film award in any country with a "llywood-type" film industry would go toward the criteria. I can't really see how picking and choosing which countries or which awards from the most prominent awards in a country would be NPOV on Wikipedia's part. (Are choreographers more or less notable than sound designers, is Nollywood more or less notable than Dhallywood, for example...). The only possible criteria I can imagine would be how many years the award has been given, but this one would surpass any reasonable cutoff at 40+years. —siro χ o 07:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Roman Catholic Diocese of Middlesbrough. The claim to standalone notability has not had much support, and a valid ATD has been proposed and not contested. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Postgate Catholic Academy Trust

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

Fails WP:NCORP/WP:SIGCOV. C&P move from draftspace. Kleuske (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, Christianity, and United Kingdom. Kleuske (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please identify if it is not suitable to be an article, I believe it is suitable U15627r473 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@U15627r473: That's basically what an AfD nomination is. The organisation in question did not receive any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and is hence non-notable. Kleuske (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are all primary sources, no independent coverage, agree it does not meet WP:NCORP. Have looked for sources to add and only found this article about nursery and reception children during COVID-19, which is fairly trivial. Tacyarg (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there is some independent coverage from the Mirror and Teeside Live in the article and the number of schools and a college in this trust makes it something we should be covering if possible, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should just be a list page instead of an article I think. Sources are not really enough to support the article but maintaining just the straight list could still be helpful. - Indefensible (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third, final relist for more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Middlesbrough as a new L2 Schools section, per [35]. Ironically the diocese navbox currently has better coverage of its schools than the diocese article. A Schools section could also be expanded (or tagged for expansion) to cover St Cuthbert's Roman Catholic Academy Trust and Ampleforth College as well. As an encyclopedia we need some coverage of the system of which the various individual schools are a part, but per NORG that is probably better handled at the diocese level than the trust level since there isn't much information we can provide about the trust as such. -- Visviva (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Othman Al-Othman

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, with all sources online and in the article being either statistics or routine coverage. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found an image caption in Arriyadiyah and SA24, which is a basic contract renewal announcement, much like one of the sources already in the article. I'm not seeing how this guy is any more notable than the last time the article got deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Stone (radio personality)

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

This seems to be a WP:BLP1E - shock jock known for one shock incident. BD2412 T 06:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 06:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All media coverage was about the incident, not the person, and was fleeting. No media mentions since 1989, apart from a one-sentence name-drop in SFGate. Non-notable individual remembered for getting fired 34 years ago...who cares. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Smith Hudson

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

Graduating from college and having a few exhibitions is insufficient to establish notability for an artist. BD2412 T 06:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. BD2412 T 06:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have worked on the article, but I don't think there are RS to bring this up to notable. The artist has taught for years, but has only begun to exhibit in 2015 WP:TOO SOON. - WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LAT is a good source, but SPA-created article does not make any compelling claim of notability. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acorn, Santa Barbara County, California

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

No evidence found that this location is or has ever been notable. The article's only citation is to the USGS GNIS verifying that there was once a site with this name. The only other verification I could find was old topographic maps (most recent from 1947) showing the site with that name, absolutely nothing else since then. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At these coordinates, Google Earth and Google Street View show just a compound at 901 Floradale Avenue belonging to Launchpad Land, apparently an agribusiness. Lots of agricultural equipment and some living facilities for migrant field workers (that's from the sign at the gate). There are several more buildings scattered along a mile of Floradale Avenue. Other than that, it's just 100s of acres/hectares of crops. It's about a mile west of Lompoc, California. My ref check came up empty.

If there's something of historical interest that would make this place notable, ping me.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one newspaper reference to Acorn being a place, and that articles makes it sound like the site of an agricultural plant, not a community. Likely yet another of the mistaken GNIS "populated place" entries. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a named place but not a notable community. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Smith (footballer, born 1978)

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

Non-notable Greek/American soccer player. A bit difficult to search for as she is overshadowed by the 2000-born USA player. Natg 19 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, Greece, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:HEY. One biographical article focused on Sophia Smith, "Cornell grad plays for Greece" in Ithaca Journal. One paragraph in USA Today discussing her jersey and her awkward role as an American of Greek ancestry on the Greek national women's team at the 2004 Athens Olympics. Another paragraph on her status as a local soccer player playing internationally in the Houston Chronicle. In addition, during her college years (particularly her junior year), her match performance as the leading scorer on the team was regularly covered in Ithaca Journal. Per WP:BASIC, it's just enough. (Also...per her LinkedIn profile, she now works as legal counsel for FIFA in Zürich, but without coverage in reliable secondary sources, we'll just leave that aspect of her career for now.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Match reports are routine coverage and can't be used to pass GNG. Two paragraphs don't cut it either. Dougal18 (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Cielquiparle. Has good sources and defiantly has moremofflince sources, having played in the early 2000s and 2004 Summer Olympics. Clearlyw as significant figure in Greek women's football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the coverage here is not WP:ROUTINE, which would be e.g. inclusion of her name on a team list in a match report: there are multiple articles already cited covering her specifically, either as an individual or within a small group, so WP:GNG is passed.

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article speaks for itself and does explain why she passes general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - speaks for itself is an essay not policy. Dougal18 (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources which (just) show notability. Giant Snowman 11:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cielquiparle, enough coverage as an Olympian to meet WP:GNG. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Requested move 24 July 2023 for related move discussion for Sophia Smith (soccer, born 2000) and Sophia Smith. Input appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG per sources on page.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emma McCagg

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and has a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women. Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Massachusetts, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article lacks sufficient references; have struggled to find meaningful coverage in reliable secondary sources to add that would satisfy WP:BASIC. Not finding much in ProQuest except for a 2001 mention of her oil paintings being exhibited at the Schoolhouse Galleries in Croton Falls, plus a photograph credit in Oprah magazine. Her work Baby Paintings is discussed briefly in this art exhibit description. If the article creator's objective is to promote the artist and her work, there are other websites and blogs that are more appropriate for that than Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any RS to bring this up to notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. poorly-sourced fanpage. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Bell Pianos

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

Tagged for notability or a year - Altenmann >talk 03:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of SIGCOV, fails GNG. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP. Simply existing does not declare a company notable. Graywalls (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

Moderator Mayhem

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

The articles were all put out near the day of the release. They are at the very least press releases and raise doubt on their sponsored/pay to play nature. This browser game does not seem to be notable for anything in particular and the coverage died down right after its release. Kate the mochii (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. Kate the mochii (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is linked from the front page right now. Would you be willing to withdraw and renominate at a later time. —siro χ o 03:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep currently linked on the main page (WP:CSK #6) Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to TurboDuo#Marketing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Turbo

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a subject that on the surface would feel like there's a lot of discussion because of how outlandish and honestly petty it was, but in actuality doesn't. After Polygon Man was a surprise in terms of reception I figured I may be wrong and look through sources for Johnny Turbo. However:

A Internet Archive search turned up nothing outside of a few small statements in two issues of Retro Gamer that are more in passing.
A google books search also turned up nothing. The one source that mentions him properly is discussing the GameSpy article already cited.
Google News, same boat. The one article that seems to be discussing them, Nintendo Life, instead links to a youtube video we can't cite as a source.
Google Scholar to boot.

Similar outcomes when trying to do web crawls through Kotaku, Polygon, Siliconera, Destructoid, GamesRadar, etc. There's no discussion about this character. The whole point of this extensive WP:BEFORE is to show that despite belief that due to its notoriety as a bad campaign, it's not notable as a subject on its own. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TurboDuo#Marketing. A minor character who was only used in a single ill-fated ad campaign and had a video game compilation or two named after him (but not actually about him). GNG is not passed in this instance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TurboDuo#Marketing. I came to the same conclusion as those above after a review of the page. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TurboDuo's marketing section, per other commenters. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge because we HAVE to preserve this ludicrous information. Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Slam (magazine). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TD Daily

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

The magazine was the football spinoff of Slam (magazine) but only released one issue more than a decade ago. Instead of deleting, I propose redirecting the article. -- ZooBlazer^talk 01:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slam (magazine) as nominator -- ZooBlazer^talk 01:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Frank Anchor 20:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Air (2007 film)

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

I am not able to find any reliable sources or reviews for this film, other than profiles. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is the review currently on the page and there is this one. At least. MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think ~~weak~~ keep given the language divide here. It looks like this film did not get much exposure in English-speaking markets, but has just enough coverage in English to soothe my doubts, plus a very reasonable cast list. —siro χ o 04:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unconvinced that Asian Movie Web is a clear-cut reliable source. The about us page neither lists the staff or editorial policies, which is not promising. The only potential claim is some WP:USEBYOTHERS in Google Books, i.e., 1, 2, 3 from obviously RS books, and a few others, but I'm unsure whether it is widespread and consistent per the guideline. Likewise, movieXclusive has no clear staff page or detailed editorial policies, and USEBYOTHERS is even weaker (based on Google/Google Books at least). Otherwise I'm unable to find sufficient sources and will probably vote weak delete later, but I'm aware of the language barrier here and might take another look again at TWL and Baidu to find sources if I have energy for that.I had another look and was unable to find sufficient sources, and remain unconvinced on the reliability of existing reviews. However, I am not proficient at Chinese or Cantonese and had to rely heavily on the unreliable Google Translate, so on the balance this is a Weak Delete . Siroxo and Mushy Yank, if you find more sources please ping me. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Updated on 22:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film already has an article in the Chinese wiki. The film released during the age when film reviews were online yet no reliable reviews found. DareshMohan (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Siroxo. Regarding the arguments above: (1) I don't think there is a policy basis for AFD to require clear-cut reliable sources, in the sense of addressing every possible concern. Adjudicating the fine points of reliability is not something the AFD process is really suited for; we have a whole separate board for that. As we are assembled here to decide whether an article should be deleted, as a rule, any genuine doubts about the appropriateness of deletion should be resolved against deletion. (2) To the extent the existence of an article on the Cantonese Wikipedia weighs at all, it should be in favor of retention, since it shows that an independent community of editors who share our encyclopedic purpose decided that this was worthy of an article. I would consider that one of various secondary indicia of notability here, along with the existence of a Baidu article. (3) An awful lot of content from 2007 is nowhere to be found today (or is buried UnGoogleably behind paywalls) (or was never online to begin with), so I don't think our difficult in locating clear-cut RS reviews is likely to indicate their actual absence. In sum, as there doesn't seem to be any real problem with verifiability or encyclopedicity, and especially as there is at least a prima facie case that the GNG is met, I think the balance of considerations weighs in favor of retention here. -- Visviva (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said in (3), Visviva (talk · contribs), as a lot of sources from 2007 are buried behind paywalls or were never online. Cunard (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The default here is that we keep things if they meet WP:GNG and we delete them if they don't, or if someone makes a compelling argument that we ought to keep it. AsianMovieWeb is not a reliable source, as far as I can tell, it is a website published by a one "movie fan" who doesn't want any other authors to contribute (source: https://www.asianmovieweb.com/en/about.htm). It is normal to discuss if a source is reliable at WP:AFD. CT55555(talk) 02:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lin, Xinruo 林欣若 (2006-09-26). "曾志偉兒子「鬼計」嚇人" [Eric Tsang's son's "Dead Air" is scary]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. D5.
  The article notes: "由陳德森監製、李伯達執導的新片「鬼計」昨天在香港開鏡，參與演出的演員包括曾志偉的兒子曾國祥、尹子維、谷祖琳也參加開鏡儀式，陳德森解釋，雖然片名是「鬼計」，但其實是一部驚悚懸疑片。... 「鬼計」雖然昨天開鏡，其實早已拍攝四天 ... 在「鬼計」裡，曾國祥飾演靈異節目的導演，因為收視跌到谷底，被尹子維飾演的監製譏笑，為了突破收視率，曾國祥找來自殺未遂人士上節目表演各種自殺方法，雖然收視告捷，卻引來更多危機。「鬼計」的劇本很有創意，光是構思自殺方式，就讓編劇想破頭，還得忙著四處蒐集資料。"
  From Google Translate: "Produced by Teddy Chan and directed by Xavier Lee, the new film Dead Air opened shooting in Hong Kong yesterday. The actors involved in the performance include Eric Tsang's son Derek Tsang, Terence Yin, and Jo Kuk who also participated in the opening ceremony. Teddy Chan explained that although the title of the film is "Dead Air", it is actually a thriller and suspense film. ... Although Dead Air started filming yesterday, it has already been filmed for four days... In Dead Air, Derek Tsang plays the director of a supernatural show. Because the ratings fell to the bottom, he was ridiculed by the producer played by Terence Yin. In order to break through the ratings, Derek Tsang recruited suicide attempters to perform various suicide methods on the show. Although the ratings were successful, it caused more crises. The script of "Dead Air" is very creative. Just thinking about the method of suicide made the screenwriter want to break his head, and he was busy collecting information everywhere."
2. "曾國祥首次擔正感壓力" [Derek Tsang feels the pressure for the first time]. Macao Daily News (in Chinese). 2006-09-27. p. D3.
  The article notes: "由陳德森導演的電影《鬼計》昨舉行開鏡拜神儀式,出席演員包括曾國祥、黎耀祥、谷祖琳、黃浩然、謝雪心及尹子維等,影片將在衛視電影台獨家首播。曾國祥在片中飾演一名電視台導演,由於這是他首次擔正演出,加上稍後還要拍劉國昌執導的 ..."
  From Google Translate: "The film Dead Air directed by Xavier Lee held a shooting worship ceremony yesterday, attended by actors including Zeng Guoxiang, Li Yaoxiang, Gu Zulin, Huang Hao Ran, Xie Xuexin and Yin Ziwei, etc., the film will exclusively premiere on Satellite TV Movie Channel. Zeng Guoxiang played the role of a TV director in the film, because this is his first performance, and he will be filming the film directed by Liu Guochang later."
3. "曾國祥幫女鬼接生嚇破膽" [Derek Tsang was scared out of his wits when he helped a female ghost deliver her baby]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. C1.
  The article notes: "另外,唐寧在片中首次扮演大肚女鬼,更要駁長發演出。甚少拍鬼片的她,雖然相信世界上有鬼但卻不會太驚,相信不刻意去想及拜過神便沒問題,而且媽咪也會為她祈禱。幸而故事環繞在電視台發生,不用去偏僻恐怖地方拍攝。而她雖聽過電視台不少怪異事,卻從未遇過怪事。至於拍鬼片經驗較多的谷祖琳,今次乃飾演電視台監製,是女版俞琤,故沒有感情線。"
  From Google Translate: "In addition, Tang Ning played the female ghost with a belly for the first time in the film, and she even had to cut her long hair. She seldom makes ghost films, although she believes that there are ghosts in the world, she will not be too shocked. She believes that it will be fine if she does not deliberately think about it and worship God, and her mother will pray for her. Fortunately, the story revolves around the TV station, and there is no need to go to remote and scary places to shoot. And although she has heard many weird things on TV, she has never encountered any strange things. As for Gu Zulin, who has more experience in making ghost films, this time she plays the role of a TV station producer. She is the female version of Yu Teng, so there is no emotional line."
4. Cheung, Wing-zi 張穎芝 (2006-09-26). "唐寧首次演女鬼恐怖血腥" [Leila Tong's first horror and bloody female ghost role]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). p. D2.
  The article notes: "唐寧在戲中飾演大肚女鬼,首次擔演女鬼的她,駁了一頭長發配合角色。 ... 唐寧日前在郊區拍攝被殺後,曾國祥為她接生的一幕戲,場面很恐怖血腥,其餘大部分場景則在電影台內拍攝 ... 首次擔正的曾國祥日前在郊外拍攝,大髀內側慘被蚊狂叮 ..."
  From Google Translate: "Tang Ning played the female ghost with a big belly in the play. It was her first time to play the role of a female ghost, and she parted her long hair to match the role. ... A few days ago, Tang Ning filmed the scene where Zeng Guoxiang delivered her baby after she was killed in the suburbs. The scene was horrific and bloody. Most of the other scenes were filmed in the movie station. ... Zeng Guoxiang, who took the lead for the first time, was filming in the suburbs a few days ago, and the inside of his big thigh was bitten by mosquitoes."
5. "唐寧生仔血淋淋" [Leila Tong gave birth to a bloody baby]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. C13.
  The article notes: "唐寧、谷祖琳、曾國祥及尹子維等昨日齊到清水灣,參與新片《鬼計》開鏡拜神儀式。唐寧飾演腹大便便的女鬼,日前還拍攝一場血淋淋的生仔戲份,"
  From Google Translate: "Tang Ning, Gu Zulin, Zeng Guoxiang and Yin Ziwei all came to Clear Water Bay yesterday to participate in the opening ceremony of the new film "Dead Air". Tang Ning played the female ghost with a belly poop, and she also filmed a bloody birth scene a few days ago,"
6. "唐寧拍鬼片阿媽代祈禱" [Leila Tong's acts in ghost film, her mother prays for her]. Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. C12.
  The article notes: "飾演女鬼的唐寧透露,該片已拍攝了多天,她謂第一場拍攝的戲份便是由曾國祥替她接生BB"
  From Google Translate: "Tang Ning, who played the female ghost for the first time, revealed that the film has been filming for several days. She said that Zeng Guoxiang delivered her baby in the first filming scene BB"
7. "唐寧媽祈禱保佑女兒拍片平安" [Leila Tong's mother prayed to bless her daughter's filming safety]. am730 (in Chinese). 2006-09-26. p. M31.
  The article notes: "戲中唐寧與曾國祥有一段感情戲,而唐寧更首次要駁長發扮演女鬼,自言甚少拍鬼片的她相信世界上是有鬼的,記者問她是否害怕拍這類型的戲時,她答道:「《鬼計》故事主要描述電視台發生的怪事,我喺電視台就冇遇過鬼怪事,不過聽聞過好多怪異事件,我相信唔刻意去諗,同埋拜過神會無問題嘅,而且媽咪都會幫我祈禱,所以都唔會太驚嘅。」"
  From Google Translate: "In the film, Tang Ning and Zeng Guoxiang had a relationship scene, and Tang Ning even refuted long-haired female ghost for the first time. She said that she seldom made ghost films and believed that there are ghosts in the world. When the reporter asked her if she was afraid of filming this type of scene , she replied: "The story of "Dead Air" mainly describes the strange things that happened on the TV station. I have never encountered ghosts and strange things on the TV station, but I have heard of many strange things. Yes, and Mommy will help me pray, so I won’t be too surprised.”"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dead Air (traditional Chinese: 鬼計; simplified Chinese: 鬼计) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bass management

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

This is a how-to guide that seems more appropriate for a project like Wikiversity. However, how-to guides on home theaters seem like they might be off-topic for that project, too, so I'm bringing it up for discussion to see if there's a better home for this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Notabile topic. Deleting would not serve readers. No opposition to also covering this topic elsewhere. If there are WP:HOWTO issues with the article, those should be discussed on the article's talk page. WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's useful and just notable, eh? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  You seem to be asserting that this is a marginally notable topic. You did not cite a notability issue in proposing this deletion so I did not address that in my original keep statement. But, here's a book search that clearly establishes notability IMO.
  
  To be clear, I think it should be kept because the subject meets WP:GNG and NinjaRobotPirate hasn't put forward a clear or valid WP:DEL-REASON in this proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  After reading deletion reason #14 in the very page that you just linked, would you like to retract your statement that I did not include a clear and valid deletion reason? Also, I'll link you to WP:GOOGLEHITS. Do you have a valid keep rationale, or are you just going to keep going down the list of invalid ones? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I've made my case as best as I am willing. I'll let others have their say. ~Kvng (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there may be a misunderstanding about the content of this article. Granted, it could do with some improvement, but it is not a how-to guide; it describes how bass management is implemented, often (but by no means always) in A/V receivers. This is about the design of the digital signal processing functions, and (in my opinion) is suitable for Wikipedia. If it would help I can volunteer to try and improve it (but not if it's about to be deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tawny Brown Frowny Owl (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has many issues, with the scope mirroring Audio crossover and the content mostly consisting of WP:HOWTO, but the subject of bass reproduction in multichannel audio systems is notable with sufficient coverage existing in Google Scholar. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Bottaro

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

Article I created in 2008 before I understood that the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL ultimately required compliance with WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage available; just routine match reports and contract announcements like this. Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article creator who has nominated it for deletion. Checked ProQuest and got 4 hits, including 2 in La Nación but all of them were mentions in match reports (he scored 2 goals in a Libertadores Cup match) or other articles (1 where his name was listed as one of the protegés of Juan Carlos Pírez; another mentioning his departure from Arsenal). Cielquiparle (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Narada Productions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flamenco: Fire and Grace

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

Fails GNG and NALBUM. Only source is associated with label. Answers.com 'source' is inexplicable, really. Not a notable compilation. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found an AllMusic review, but nothing else that wasn't ads or brief mentions. And with nothing else, I say redirect to Narada Productions, though it might be worth a section on that page since it's also quite bare bones. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with Narada Productions. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to support an explicit merge vote as well, though given how few participants are here I do worry it might not get done in a timely manner. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bill Goldberg. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automaniac

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

Fails WP:NTV. No SIGCOV, only a few passing mentions. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Bill Goldberg. There are mentions of the show, enough for a sentence in the host's article, but not enough for its own page. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Why Harlequins v Saracens is English rugby's bitterest rivalry". The Times. 10 June 2022. Retrieved 17 July 2023.

[2] "Saracens put on a show in front of world record crowd at Wembley". Eurosport. Retrieved 17 July 2023.

[3] "Premiership Rugby smashes TV record with Farrell v Smith showdown". Rugby World. 29 March 2023. Retrieved 11 July 2023.

[1]

[2]

[3]