Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 03	March 05 >

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 redirect to Fox College Hoops. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Primetime Hoops

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

Fails WP:GNG, could not find enough reliable sources. Article currently only uses one source, a press release from Fox Sports. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no significant coverage by independent sources. Was a redirect to related content and that would be reasonable to reestablish. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - Seems to be another name for Fox College Hoops, which is already covered.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I don't see a reason to keep this AfD running given that the nominator was blocked for disruptive editing combined with the unanimous consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Blackburn Bradbury

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

Does not meet notability requirements Komskie (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a knight and as a vice-admiral. Listed in a biographical dictionary, Blue Book (1970). I could only find one journal article authored or co-authored by Bradbury, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(45)90780-X/fulltext Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- He was also in who's Who. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Who_s_who/mK4KawdOUDMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Eric+Blackburn+Bradbury&dq=Eric+Blackburn+Bradbury&printsec=frontcover Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eastmain, Is Who's Who a reliable source? Don't they offer to put anyone on their list if they're willing to pay a fee? — Jacona (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep KBE and Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. Mccapra (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Query Currently not very convinced by the arguments presented so far. For example, being an admiral is not an automated notability pass (Even the old notability essay WP:NSOLDIER is explicitly deprecated) and Who's Who is considered generally unreliable. @Eastmain:, is "Blue book" a standard national biography of the same type/caliber as Dictionary of National Biography, i.e. does it in your view fit WP:ANYBIO#3? @Mccapra:, do you reckon that Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons meets WP:NPROF#3 or WP:ANYBIO#1? -Ljleppan (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into the fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons, because a KBE certainly passes WP:ANYBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, this makes it a rather clear keep for me based on the KBE, even if the other aspects are more red herrings. Ljleppan (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO having "received a well-known and significant award or honour", ie KBE and FRCS; also held senior role in the Royal Navy, ie Medical Director-General of the Navy Piecesofuk (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep KBE satisfies WP:ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. KBE very obviously satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1. Very odd first edit from anybody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the nominator has now been blocked for disruptive editing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG. Sufficient material for a useful article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep KBE satisfies WP:ANYBIO. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Straightforward case of WP:ANYBIO and clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Nominator has been blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Sarmiento

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched but can't find enough to satisfy WP:GNG. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Only saw statistics sources which in no way proves notability.Epcc12345 (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:09, 11 March 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Beloya

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], among many more sources. There is also a Philippines Business Mirror article about him called "Bacolod's blueprint for U-23 success" that is jot available online. Defineitlty has more offline sources as as a clearly significiant figure in Filipino football with internaitnional appearances and extensive fully pro ongoing Filipino top flight career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above, per whats online, there seems more than enough to pass GNG. Not sure I understand this nomination either from my pospective it doesn't look like WP:BEFORE was done. Govvy (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Das osmnezz. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germán Rodríguez

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Other than match reports like this, the best I could find was this, which is far short of what is needed. Jogurney (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE beyond the ones presented by Jogurney. SBKSPP (talk) 00:09, 11 March 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shrek characters

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

FANDOM-esque crufty repository of original research. Maintenance tags have been in place for ten years. Notable characters already have their own articles; those appearing in only a single film are described in the respective film articles, thus obviating any need for a centralized list. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Comics and animation, and Lists. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Shrek franchise (including spin-offs like Puss in Boots) is pretty huge. I have a couple reservations about deleting this page, mainly that it arguably meets a few criteria of WP:NLIST. Namely, since many characters have pages, it serves as a centralized navigation page. I also think there are some examples where the characters "have been discussed as a set" (such as in DreamWorks Animation: Intertextuality and Aesthetics in Shrek and Beyond or Investigating Shrek: Power, Identity, and Ideology). There are a lot of scholarly books on Shrek. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shrek characters already acts as centralized navigation for prominent characters. Other characters are either negligible in terms of relative coverage, or only associated with single films in the franchise. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTDUP! Categories, templates, and lists do not affect the existence of each other. And "negligible" does not mean "non-existent"; if a character should not be included in the list, that is an editing decision. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not arguing to delete it on the basis that a similar category exists. Just saying that if readers were to look for "centralized navigation" after this list is deleted, there will always still be the category. Regarding your second point; the decision might be editorial, but once you remove undue info from that list, the question becomes what remains that is worth keeping? At that point, I'd just refer to standalone articles. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the average Wikipedia user (read: not editor) even use categories all that much? I know that I don't. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 13:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that, while categories are of much use to Wikipedia editors, they are likely ignored by users for the most part and forward facing lists are far more important for that purpose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Notable characters already have their own articles" is an admission that this is precisely the sort of list encompassed in WP:LSC: While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Excessive or unsupported detail and and should be solved through editing. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another nomination that is part of an overall trend of trying to get rid of all character lists on Wikipedia without doing any BEFORE.★Trekker (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid nav page; AfD is not cleanup. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough articles have their own article to be a valid navigational and information list.

Any concerns can be discussed on the talk page, and dealt with by normal editing procedures. Dream Focus 16:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NEXIST, and, like, a lot of Shrek characters are individually and provably notable, as can be seen on their respective pages. Which is to be expected of one of the biggest animation series of all time. Perhaps WP:SOFIXIT is merited instead, I did my part by rescuing 2 character articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't imagine this doesn't meet WP:NLIST. If I am wrong, ping me with the counterargument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 8 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Raj Goyal

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:FILMMAKER, Fails WP:GNG, references are, with one exception, TV (etc) announcements and gossip columns 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that the sources are dubious, but a quick web search shows a lot about the guy. His films, his awards, and even his partner, are wiki-notable. Could be draftified, but would it do any good? Suitskvarts (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:FILMMAKER, Fails WP:GNG. Sources do not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 20:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:05, 10 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Mehta

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

Fails WP:BIO, No real secondary coverage in the first two ref blocks.Refs are PR, interviews, x of y articles and profiles. WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:DEL4. scope_creep^Talk 19:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Arab Emirates, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: plenty of significant coverage here. There is no objection to interviews, profiles, and so on, so long as the sources are reliable and independent of the subject. Moonraker (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually there is. Interview are WP:SPS sources and can't be used to establish notability unless the peson is a model. Lets examine the references on the first two blocks:

Ref 1: [9] This is an interview. Its an WP:SPS source and is WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 2: [10]] Another interview in the same mag. Its an WP:SPS source and is WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 3 [11] This is an x of y article and is non-rs.
Ref 4 [12]] Another interview.
Ref 5 [13] X of Y article, likely non-rs
Ref 6 [14] X of Y article. 25 richest. Likely non-rs.
Ref 7 [15] X of Y article. 50 richest Likely non-rs.
Ref 8 Rich list. X of Y article. Likely non-rs
Ref 9 [16] Indian power list. X of Y article. Likely non-rs
Ref 10 [17] Profile, WP:PROMO article.
Ref 11 [18]] PR. Another profile. Interview but not significant.
Ref 12 [19] Another interview.
Ref 13 [https://gulfbusiness.com/uaes-new-reality-show-to-debut-in-october/ Passing mention.
Ref 14 [20] Another interview.
Ref 15 [21] Another interview.

There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source in the whole lot. 8 of the 15 are by Arabian Business, which is similar to Forbes, producing lots of x of y articles and likely non-rs in a similar manner to forbes. While WP:V seems to be satisfied here, as it verifies he exists, it doesn't prove he is notable per WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that some of the sources are thin, The Arabian Business article "The Good Life" is solid, and The Gulf News "Rise of Petrochem CEO Yogesh Mehta" makes use of many quotes but is more than an interview - it does not use the Q&A format of an interview, but intersperses reporting with quotes. Taken together with the critical article in NewsLaundry, I think this meets GNG. BTW, NewsLaundry is on the list of reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamona (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AShiv1212 (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and source evaluation above. BLPs need proper sourcing for content and notability. Sources are primary, promotion, listing, etc type mentions. Gulf News article is a mention and promotional. Nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 21:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NewsLaundry is about an company incident only vaguely related to the subject of the article. The Gulf News derives all of its information from the interview so it is not independent. There are not enough independent and reliable information to make a detailed article about this person. Carpimaps (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Rebollo

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is routine/trivial coverage available like [22] or [23], but the article fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage available. Looks like Rebollo played briefly in the Tercera and lower leagues in Spain. Jogurney (talk) 13:17, 6 March 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Berry-White

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep See[[24]][[25]] also she was named the state’s Coach of the Year by the NSCAA see [[26]][[27]] another award in 2015 were she won Girls Coaches of the Year [[28]] and see another award [[29]] i think is significant enough to make her notable.Epcc12345 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Joeykai I noticed you are the creator of the article, why are you nominating it for deletion? Epcc12345 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources proving notability. I'll try to improve the article in the coming days. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article desperately needs cleanup. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider reverting to this version ahead of MOS-breaking edits by SPA (possible COI, as they seem to have a vast amount of unsourced info). PamD 08:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. [30] is not independent: N. [31] is a piece about her coaching a class 2A girls soccer team in the local press (Indy Star) and contains a lot of prose either not directly on her or repeating things Berry White said/felt (not independent/secondary analysis): N. [32] is a passing mention in the same outlet as #2 (and being voted a high school coach of the year at the state level obviously isn't an ANYBIO pass): N. [33] is identical to #3: N. [34] is a trivial mention in the non-independent list of winners of a minor award among participating coaches in Indiana: N. [35] is a passing mention in the non-independent announcement from SBJ of which SBJ executives correctly guessed who would win the Super Bowl: N. Even if source #2 was SIGCOV, GNG requires multiple SIGCOV sources, and that is far from being achieved here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also found 13, 14, and 15 among more sources, including offline ones having played for the US women's national team, the most successful women's national team. Capped played with ongoing coaching career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the sources used in this discussion and those in the show are used, then the page will be fine, as it needs improvement rather than deletion. I agree with the arguments of Epcc12345, GiantSnowman, Das osmnezz, and S.A. Julio, and strongly disagree with the reasoning of the OP and JoelleJay, especially with the latter picking through every source.Historyday01 (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed source analyses are strongly encouraged at AfD. What two RS here are each secondary, independent, and SIGCOV as assessed through the lens of NSPORT? I am willing to reconsider if sources with SIGCOV are found that aren't from the Indy Star (which is not intellectually independent from other pieces from the same outlet). JoelleJay (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - has significant coverage in sources that are independent - USA Today HSS, a big article in Indianapolis Star and another Indy Star article which is obviously more than a trivial mention. That should count for more than one source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone, if those sources were all from different newspapers I would agree, but they're all from the Indy/Indianapolis Star so are not intellectually independent. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my !vote as I failed to realise the USA Today HSS was the same newspaper as the other two. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I typically would impose a high bar on notability of high school coaches, but I do acknowledge the media bias against girls' sports, and I am impressed here by the depth of coverage I found on Newspapers.com. The in-depth piece from the Indy Star (cited above) was picked up in multiple newspapers. I realize it remains the same article but it takes it out of the realm of any argument that this is merely local coverage. Examples: [36], [37], [38]. Also, according to this in-depth piece, she was a three-time All-American (WP:NCOLLATH pass?), a member of the USA national team, and a participant in the inaugural women's World Cup in 1991. See also here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further note. The three All-America honors does bring her within the scope of WP:NCOLLATH, prong 1. Cbl62 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having thought this through, I conclude that she passes both WP:NCOLLATH (prong 1 as a three-time All-American) and WP:GNG. There are multiple examples of SIGCOV from the Indy Star, several cited above. In addition, there is this from the Indiana Soccer Hall of Fame. Other factors influencing me to tilt to the "keep" side include (i) systemic bias against women's sports when she was a star in the 1980s, (ii) the fact that one of the Indy Star feature stories was also picked up by USA Today and other regional newspapers (e.g. [39], [40], [41]), thus bringing the coverage outside of any argument that the coverage is only local, (iii) participation on Team USA at the inaugural women's World Cup. Cbl62 (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. The IndyStar is just part of the USA Today network and publishes its sports content under that masthead; it's not USA Today itself publishing. And what is the ISHoF link supposed to mean? However, given your argument that NCOLLATH is met, I can agree that there's a plausible SPORTBASIC #5 pass indicative of further coverage somewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you that the Indy Star piece doesn't become multiple sources by being picked up in multiple outlets. My point was simply that its being picked up in multiple newspapers lessens any "local coverage" concern. In any event, thanks for keeping an open mind and reconsidering. Cbl62 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I want to note that she did not participate in the 1991 Women's World Cup; the citation in the article quotes her as saying "I went to China in 1991 because I had friends on the team. People came up to me on the streets thinking I was on the team and wanting my autograph." I removed the World Cup sentence from the article. Joeykai (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeykai: Thanks for catching/fixing that. My bad. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument made by Cbl62 is enough to convince me that Berry-White is notable. I still believe the article desperately needs cleanup, though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources demonstrate notability and satisfy both WP:NATHLETE and WP:GNG. I’m not convinced by arguments that the provided sources are problematic, because they aren’t. I find them to be reliable and independent, suitable for demonstrating WP:NOTABILITY. If the subject wasn’t notable, I would support deleting. However, the sources demonstrate notability and satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are two solid Indy Star sources, which might be an issue in validating SIGCOV, but they were published decades apart (October 28, 1993 and July 5, 2020) with the second one placing her in a list of Indianapolis-area sporting "greats." I think it's just enough to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Gaspar

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy notability criteria for sportspeople. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His professional debut attracted some useful coverage (e.g., [42]) particularly because he had recovered from cancer, but I can't find anything else that isn't routine or trivial. Since he only ever played a handful of matches in Liga MX, I don't expect to find much offline coverage either. Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Metro Line 7

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

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the single sentence in this stub. What I do know is that Kolkata Metro Line 7 doesn't currently exist, that it's not mentioned in Kolkata Metro as a possible new line (which, by the way, means that we can't just redirect Kolkata Metro Line 7 to Kolkata Metro) and that Google has never heard about a planned Line 7 in Kolkata. The one reference is behind a paywall so I can't check if it mentions Line 7 but I seriously doubt it since the article dates back to 2012. Pichpich (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Pichpich (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article may refer to proposal #4 in this list. However, we do not know right now which of the proposed lines, if any, will be the future line #7. Hence it's probably best to delete and not to redirect in order not to confuse anyone. If someone finds more or better information, I will be open to change my position. gidonb (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The status being "unofficially planned" does not make me at all confident this hypothetical metro line is actually notable, not that the author gave us much of anything to go on to even identify the article's subject. A proposed rail line can be notable, such as North–South Rail Link, but like anything else we need to see significant coverage to have an article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The text The Kolkata Metro Line 7 from Kavi Subhash to Baruipur is an unsanctioned line of the Kolkata Metro which is expected to be sanctioned after the under construction Metro projects of the city are completed. (which is actually the entire article) does not seem to indicate that this is an official proposal in any capacity. If there were sources, I would have !voted to redirect the page to Kolkata Metro and add sources there, as there is not enough info for a standalone article. However, I cannot even find sources about this line. Maybe ArnabSaha may know more about whether this topic exists, but I'm not seeing any coverage of this proposal at all, let alone significant coverage. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article fails WP:GNG as the only sources I could find relating to any line 7 in India were for the Mumbai Metro's Line 7, and the source that was provided doesn't even mention Line 7 at all. – Mapmatics (talk) 01:54, 7 March 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

José Guadalupe Rubio

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], and [53], among many more Spanish sources as well as YouTube interviews and podcast interviews. Definitely has offline sources having been clearly significant figure in Mexican football with many fully pro Liga MX appearances in past decades. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Appears to be known as Lupe Rubio. Giant Snowman 16:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG. Although, ideally would be expanded.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't done my own search yet so not !voting at this time, but, of the sources above: 1 is an interview with very little independent exposition by the interviewer: N. 2 is an interview where even the non-interview parts are almost entirely primary reflections from the interviewer ("some asked us if we were related"): N. 3 is a Q&A interview with just three sentences introducing the subject: N. 4 is a Q&A interview with two sentences of intro: N. 5 is an interview with some independent coverage, but it's about his local business and has barely four sentences on his football career: N. 6 is an announcement of his winning an honor from La Laguna fans, there are just a couple secondary independent sentences at the end summarizing his career: N. 7 is pure quotes from him: N. 8 is pure quotes (either direct, indirect in the form of "Rubio said", or in the style of the interviewer summarizing a forthcoming direct quote; none of these are independent/secondary): N. 9 is pure quotes: N. 10 is a primary recounting of the same award ceremony as above, with a couple snippets of mostly the same background info contained in the other award piece: N. 11 is another quote-dense interview with only a few sentences of background commentary: N. JoelleJay (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of 10. The background information in it (reproduced below) is not routine and notes two of his important achievements (helping his club reach the final in 1993–94 and win the Invierno 1996 title). I'll do some further checking, but in my view this El Siglo de Torreón article certainly contributes towards SIGCOV:

Lupe Rubio, nacido en la Colonia Santa Rosa de Gómez Palacio, jugó durante diez años en Santos Laguna, desde la última temporada del equipo en Segunda División, la 1987-1988, hasta el Verano 1977, habiendo sido subcampeón con los Guerreros en la campaña 1993-1994 y campeón en el Invierno 1996.

Con Santos Laguna jugó 181 partidos en Primera División y anotó 11 goles. En el Invierno 1997 fue transferido al equipo Toros Neza, en el que año y medio después concluyó su carrera. Jogurney (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that according to the newspaper, Rubio was just the seventh player in the history of the club to receive the award. I think many of the articles linked above by Das osmnezz contain coverage that contributes towards SIGCOV, but we shouldn't lose sight of the newspaper's view (which appears to be echoed by his club and other Mexican media) that Rubio was an outstanding figure in Mexican football. Jogurney (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same info repeated in the other articles on the honor, I consider two sentences listing all the seasons he played and for whom the same type of transactional material we reject in transfer announcements. I get that the club is honoring him and the papers use laudatory language, which is why I haven't !voted yet, but I think we need a lot more than what's been found so far. JoelleJay (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although this biography is poorly sourced and woefully incomplete at the moment, I believe it covers a notable subject and can be expanded to meet our guidelines. Since Rubio played during the 1980s and 1990s, contemporary online Mexican media coverage isn't available to me. For example, El Siglo de Torreón has an archive, but the search function isn't working (I found lots of trivial coverage like match reports by Google searching it, and this brief recap of the Santos squad he was a part of during the 1990s which has this interesting commentary: Pedro Muñoz se afirma cada día más como titular induscutible de la defensa central, lo mismo que Guadalupe Rubio; este par de laguneros han demostrado que para jugar esa posición no se requiere de gran velocidad, el fútbol es un deporte de inteligencia y en el cuadro bajo la ubicación correcta es indispensable). As noted above, the same newspaper (apparently based on a vote by its readers) honored Rubio after his career ended (making him just the seventh Santos player to receive it - placing him in the company of clearly notable footballers like Benjamín Galindo and Oribe Peralta). There is other coverage linked above which is useful, although much of it includes Q&A with the subject, and I think we can piece together all of it to find WP:SIGCOV exists. Obviously, with access to Mexican media archives, this would be much easier to conclude. That said, this footballer made nearly 200 appearances in the Liga MX (I would think most footballers who did this from the 1970s or later would easily generate the required coverage), most of his career as one of two central defenders in a top-performing club (Santos Laguna). If people are concerned about the online coverage available, perhaps draftifying would be an alternative, but I worry that access to Mexican newspaper archives won't improve in the next few months. Common sense dictates that Rubio was an important figure in Mexican club football during the 1990s, and we have enough recent coverage of him to suggest archived coverage would be in-depth. Jogurney (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Jogurney's IAR reasoning. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Jogurney and certainly some of the sources from Das are decent enough that we could at least build a half-decent article. Hopefully, those news archives in Mexico will be uploaded online in the near future, it would certainly benefit the project greatly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I completely agree with the points raised by Jogurney. Myna50 (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jogurney.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Hughes

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

Insufficient coverage on page, didn't find enough else. QuietHere (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Alabama. QuietHere (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage for this actor to establish notability. There are 3 references in the article of which 2 do not even mention Hughes. -- Whpq (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 10 March 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 Nemra (band). $Salvio giuliano$ 21:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Van Yeghiazaryan

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

Songwriter for Nemra (band) (which needs a complete rewrite because it's a highly-promotional article that reads almost like something out of WP:GARAGE). A single-purpose account, possibly a band member or associate, wrote both articles. The subject fails to meet any criteria in WP:MUSICBIO, particularly criterion #6, as he isn't a prominent member of two or more notable ensembles. The two sources provided (a brief description and an interview) don't establish notability. The band may be notable, but that doesn't mean any member is notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nemra (band), lacks direct and indepth SIGCOV from RS. // Timothy :: talk 20:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nemra (band) as not independently notable at this stage, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nemra (band) per above lacks indepth coverage for stand alone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yisrael Safeek

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

Non-notable physician, author, and healthcare software company executive. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete no independent coverage that I can see at all, no evidence of passing GNG (or WP:NPROF based on the few journal articles). The whole article seems to be based on corporate publications from the subject itself / his company. WP:PROMOTE without question. --hroest 03:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Sumeed

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

Promotional profile of a media advisor with no real indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears that he works as a journalist for two small news outlets difficult to verify as far as WP:RELY content and factchecking are concerned, Kashmir News Bureau and The Kashmir Scenario. Far from enough for inclusion. Other than that, I was unable to find any other sources that would establish the subject's notability. Ppt91 ^talk 21:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i also go through the article it seems the media outlets are verified and registered, i think this article should be there 2405:201:5502:C2ED:2846:114D:CBB4:5C8A (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - UPE/COI article about a non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, Malik has more than 10 year experience in journalism. Keeping in mind that he has worked in small outlets in not justified because he is also been a media advisor (Links attached on page). And first Bollywood journalist from one place. Keeping these points in consideration I request to reverse the decision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamat elegits (talk • contribs) 03:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Being experience doesn't passes GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refactored as I thought the comment from Jamat elegits belonged to the AfD above this one on the log. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as resume. Not much for external articles that cover Sumeed, only passing mentions, press releases, or authored, As for 10 years experience, I have that on Wikipedia, so should I have an article? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is passingWP:GNG. as many verified links are available there.

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramen Goel

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

Non-notable bariatric and metabolic surgeon. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no sources found other than confirmation where he works. Resume-like article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:57, 10 March 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 Young Chef Olympiad. czar 22:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garima Poddar

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

Seems like an obscure chef, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to have been able to leverage her early success into notability. MNewnham (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Chef Olympiad. That seems to be one of the highlights of her life, so it would make more sense than outright deletion.Historyday01 (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Chef Olympiad per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SJPN Trust

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

Obscure school trust; fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Sources are not independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 04:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SJPN Trust's Polytechnic

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

Obscure technical school; fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Article is a list of 10 diploma (certificate) programs, nothing more. Sources are not independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. There is no reason for an entire separate article for a 10 point list. // Timothy :: talk 04:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 04:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 9 March 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. Joyous! Noise! 04:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sasuke Ninja Warrior Indonesia

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

Prodded in July 2020 due to lacking sources and failing WP:GNG, but the prod was consteted and then the article was unilaterally redirected to Sasuke (TV series). When content related to international editions of Sasuke was removed in January 2023, this page was brought to RfD. Users at the RfD raised concerns over the decision to WP:BLAR this article, and opted to restore this page and bring it to AfD. I have made no attempt of my own to determine if this topic meets GNG, as this is a procedural AfD and secondary sources would primarily be in Indonesian. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Indonesia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what's in the article already, I found [54][55][56][57][58], at which point I stopped looking. It took quite a bit of scrolling—the extent to which Google deprioritizes Indonesian media is shocking—but I'd say it's notable. I could potentially be persuaded this is PR churn, but right now I am not inclined to think so. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Barely, Sources are promoish, but there is probably enough to pass. A good argument for the sources being promo could convince me on delete. // Timothy :: talk 12:39, 11 March 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 Quest Global. If that article is deleted as well, this redirect can be nominated for speedy deletion under criterion G8. Otherwise, history will be left intact as some interest in merging was expressed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Prabhu

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

Hardly notable, he has done a lot of pr and only in-depth I can find is spam like [59], [60]. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep : As the Economic Times article and the Times of India article seems credible and detailed Christopheronthemove (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quest Global: (if it survives its own AFD otherwise Delete). This BLP doesn't have SIGCOV from I RS that addresses the subject directly and indepth. Sources are promotional, eg: "Under the leadership of Ajit, QuEST Global Engineering has been able to achieve deep strategic relationships with its customers and develop a "best-in-class" global engineering team to support a prestigious list of highly reputed customers ... Ajit’s determination, ability to open up new market space, dynamism and passion to understand customer challenges enabled QuEST Global Engineering to establish a leadership position in most of its service offerings." (The Economic Times). BLPs need proper sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 12:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-duplicative to Quest Global. Djflem (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CtrlS

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the coverage found is basically PR. I would argue this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:NCORP. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the first nom and this nom. ArcAngel (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see the deleted CtrlShift article but the Singapore marketing company appears distinct from this Indian data center firm. Regarding this firm, the announcement-based coverage currently referencing the article is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH; some semi-advertorial coverage can be found [61] - enough to confirm this as a firm going about its business (under a Pioneer Group about which there is no article to serve as an WP:ATD), but insufficient to demonstrate attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Emmanuel

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

Non-notable independent writer, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nomination. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. He is still an up-and-coming writer who doesn't have a career to speak of. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom upcoming not notable at this point fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impartus

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

Mostly PR-based, organization fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Karnataka. AllyD (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a start-up which was taken-over and its product rebranded as upGrad Campus. searches under that name find recent coverage of job losses (upGrad Campus lays off 30% workforce at subsidiary, also reported elsewhere) but that doesn't establish notability. A redirect to Ronnie_Screwvala#upGrad reflecting the 2021 acquisition and rebrand could be an option. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodshir Dailë

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

Does not appear to be notable. I was able to find an (obviously non-independent) interview, and some (either likely or confirmed self-written) bios on websites where you can purchase his artwork (e.g., [62][63][64]). House Blaster^talk 19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, and Photography. House Blaster^talk 19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO I cannot see a way to edit this into a biography of a notable person. Created by an editor with 18 edits. Signs strongly point towards CIO or UPE. Additionally, the article was moved from main space to draft with a note that it wasn't suitable for main space and not to move it back to main space un til UPE/COI issue was addressed . It was then returned to the main space ingoring messages. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, one hit in GQ Mexico for some reason. The UPI is a concern. I'm not finding notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does have a background in fashion, subject is listed as the producer for the fashion editorial listed on GQ Mexico that you are referring to.

https://www.gq.com.mx/actualidad/personajes/articulos/entrevista-a-sebastian-stan/4510 Marcelus.arnault (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lihini Weerasuriya

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Sri Lanka. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in accordance with WP:NTENNIS, significant coverage is likely to exist for tennis figures if they have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments, or any of the WTA 125 tournaments. According to the WTA records Weerasuriya won the ITF Key Biscayne event in 1992 and the ITF Freeport Bahamas event in 1995. At the time both these events were $10,000 events. It should be noted that Weerasuriya is the highest ranked women tennis player from Sri Lanka in the modern era.[65] Dan arndt (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree Weerasuriya is also Sri Lanka's best tennis player in the modern era. WTA Tour played main table Played main table in 1994 Oklahoma Tournament.Tournament draws played main table in several wta tournaments in the 90s.(talk) 18:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A tough one. Per Project guidelines notability is likely to exist for representing your nation in Fed Cup. Whether the gng actually exists is a tough call. She only won minor-minor league events as a pro.... not even minor league challenger level, but minor-minor league ITF 10,000 events. So she has done nothing notable in professional tennis. This probably squeaks by as Keep only because she was the highest ranked Sri Lankan player in the history of Sri Lanka (male or female). That had to have garnered press in Sri Lanka which I don't read or write. Do their newspapers/magazines get archived in any database? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click), per the guidelines GNG is only likely to exist if a SIGCOV IRS source has been identified. Otherwise sport-specific guideline criteria can't apply. JoelleJay (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per guidelines, not per policy. Local guidelines and individual consensus guidelines happen all the time at Wikipedia. That doesn't mean it can go sourceless. We always need those sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a local guideline, as you know this was according to global consensus on a en.wp guideline, which always overrules project-level criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have seen MOS consensus over-ridden 100s of times in my many years here. All it takes is more people editing an article that disagrees with something like MOS. It usually requires a very popular article for that to happen. Something like Serena Williams or Global Warming lets say. But I'm not sure what you are arguing against. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I attempted to search for her in Tamil (using the Tamil transliteration of "Weerasuriya" that other Weerasuriyas use) and found nothing. GNG is required and it is not met here. JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the wrong language. Sinhala is the predominant language in the country Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks, didn't find anything for ලිහිණි or විජේසූරිය either. JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with the reasoning of other users on here, but also feel this page would do much better to be improved rather than being deleted wholesale.Historyday01 (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01, are you aware that all sports articles are required to a) meet GNG and b) have at least one SIGCOV source cited in the article? JoelleJay (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All articles should meet GNG, not just sports. But there can be things to consider other than GNG and if enough editors agree then MOS's guidelines get pushed aside as it has always been here. Underrepresentation of women in articles can be a strong incentive for editors to buck MOS. If a male gets an article for being the best male soccer player to not have an article on the best woman soccer player will get rightfully hammered if you try to delete it... no matter the sources. There has to be flexibility. Wikiproject:Women in Sports will flock to the rescue of the article. That's not the case here... this person is borderline and I don't really care which way it goes. But nothing is etched in stone as long as more wikipedians come to an article to vote a particular way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand where you are coming from, I suppose, I find your attitude about how "Wikiproject:Women in Sports will flock to the rescue of the article" and that "underrepresentation of women in articles can be a strong incentive for editors to buck MOS" to be disturbing. They are views which undermine your whole comment here. As such, those views put your whole argument, in defense of the deletion of this page, into question, suggesting other possible motives for supporting deletion. Historyday01 (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not "borderline": she has exclusively sparse database sources that don't even contain the barest biographical information. This is a slam-dunk delete. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said, that improving an article is BETTER than deletion. Historyday01 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know that arguments that are not based on guidelines will be disregarded, right? And what sources would we even use to improve the article? JoelleJay (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I would also support a redirect to Sri Lanka Billie Jean King Cup team. Alvaldi (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I agree with the sentiment that improving an article is better than deleting it, I can't find any sources with which to improve this article. I also can't see any WP:ATD except maybe a redirect to Sri Lanka Billie Jean King Cup team as above. Playing in 1994 IGA Classic – Singles means that she does technically meet WP:NTENNIS, the GNG failure is so comprehensive that that must take priority I'm afraid. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note I asked the Sri Lankan Tennis Association if they can help find any press or magazine articles on her since there has never been anyone higher ranked in their country's history. We'll see if they have anything to share. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:38, 8 March 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 3D Movie Maker. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3D Movie (software)

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

Poorly written, meandering article that can't seem to decide whether it's discussing stereoscopic movies, computer animation or the software used to create it. Its original topic was the file format used by 3D Movie Maker which isn't notable enough for its own article. Any information on the page could easily be merged into the articles already mentioned. PolarManne (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 3D Movie Maker. I've reverted the WP:FRANKENSTEIN additions, and the remainder is applicable to this target article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Thebiguglyalien revision to 3D Movie Maker per above. // Timothy :: talk 13:58, 11 March 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. Consensus seems to be coming down in the direction of a weak, sickly keep. Joyous! Noise! 04:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kozyrev mirror

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kozyrev mirror

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

A Russian pseudoscientific device. Reliable sources don't seem to exist and the device doesn't appear notable. BorgQueen (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Search results in English and Russian are mostly conspiracy theories and promotional materials, but there are also a few neutral sources about the history of the experiments, like [66]. small jars tc 15:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I created this article long time back, because the subject came up in a number of my translation jobs. I prefer to have it on Wikipedia for reference, while adhering to the Wikipedia standards for citations and notability. I'm happy about the contributions from different editors that were made to the article over the years it existed and find it to be a good summary on the subject. Otherwise, I'm happy with any decision. Nazar (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nazar: If you'd like to see the article improved, adding more reliable sources would help a lot. BorgQueen (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not too hawkish on this, but I find the sourcing situation to be rather weak. There's one attempt at a "study" I can find which absolutely drips a Bad Science vibe [67], and that's about it for serious coverage. (This "biographical sketch" on Kozyrev mentions it but it's more like a MySpace rant - not something you would want to cite.) I don't think there's sufficient stuff for an article here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added sources to a patent for the mirror along with a source to a book that focuses on the mirror, and discusses experiments with humans done with the mirror in detail. Humanimus (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barely. // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Could use a few more sources though

AtFirstLight (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gamini Singla

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

The subject of this article has questionable notability. She does not meet BIO, and has only been covered for one event. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. I can find significant coverage about her from News18 India and Amar Ujala. (Note: I am the creator of this article) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 13:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 13:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage appears focused on one event, she otherwise appears to be low-profile, and available sources do not appear to support significance or her substantial and well-documented role (including because of how many sources rely on her statements and therefore lack independence, e.g. Indian Express, BBC News, Hindustan Times, Tribune (Chandigarh), Amar Ujala, News18, or include her as one of several, e.g. Tribune (Chandigarh)). There also do not appear to be reviews of her exam-prep book, only an announcement [68]. Even without WP:BLP1E, the limited coverage in independent and reliable sources does not appear to support WP:GNG/WP:BASIC at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also found her biography in Byju's. See https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/gamini-singla-upsc-2021-air-3/ 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Byjus is not a reliable source — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Byju's is a major exam prep company in India, and its promotion of someone who placed 3rd in the UPSC exam [69], was the subject of multiple similar puff-piece articles, and then published an exam-prep book, seems to help contribute to the appearance here of an advertisement masquerading as an article. It seems WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article based on the depth and independence of the available sources - the coverage about her is not yet sustained. Beccaynr (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Civil Services Examination for now. In the future, perhaps an article can be created, with stronger sources.Historyday01 (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beccaynr summed this up well. BLPs need clear sourcing for notability. // Timothy :: talk 14:22, 11 March 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 Uzalo. Sandstein 21:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ntokozo Dlamini

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NACTOR, could be redirected to Uzalo, his only significant role, but that has been contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uzalo: Currently fails NACTOR and GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he acted in a major soap opera for a number of years, and was profiled in Drum Magazine, which is a wide circulation magazine. I’ll try to find more sources to determine whether he meets WP:GNG.Park3r (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Park3r A number of the sources are News24 - which should be good enough for GNG. There is some bias towards our local news sources - this might be because they are not as widely known Gbawden (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, we've had articles like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francois_Lensley and an ongoing one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poena Is Koning where the GNG bar is held a lot higher by participants, despite multiple mentions in well-established South African WP:RS, and despite WP:WORLDWIDE being a thing (Lensley being on the cover of, and profiled by, Sarie wasn’t enough to save his article). So, while I agree this article would meet GNG, SA articles are held to a higher bar here. WP:Articles_for_deletion/STANLIB_(2nd_nomination) was another example, although that got reversed. Stan Schmidt was saved because the Herald Sun (a paper with a rather mixed reputation in Australia) profiled him, but the South African sources that adhere to good journalistic standards were disregarded. The GNG bar for SA articles seems to be that editors personally are familiar with the subject and the sources, or that the sources are from the first-world. It's a bit of a weird position, because South Africa is a de facto English-speaking country, but it's outside of the Anglosphere (UK-US-Aus-NZ-Ireland) so it's not culturally similar, and that could explain part of the unfamiliarity. The only solutions would be for AFD participants to make an effort to familiarise themselves with the South African sources, or for more South African editors to participate in AFDs. Park3r (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uzalo: BLPs need clear unambiguous sources and this does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 06:47, 6 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HolyHell

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

Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No charting, gold, reviews. No multiple albums on important label. Blue linked members are not both independently notable, both's claim to notability is entirely dependent on the bands they were in. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are nine sources here? Why do you feel none count towards WP:GNG? Garuda3 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1, database listing, user edited, 2, listing of appearence on a dvd, 3, their own site, 4, myspace, 5, interview, 6, routine announcement, 7 webzine, not a reliable source, 8, press release, 9, press release. None are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage. None are any good for GNG duffbeerforme (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure of the reliability of Sonic Cathedral. Not confident in Drummerszone's. Blabbermouth.net is solid and I believe BraveWords is as well. The rest is crap and what's not isn't enough. Not seeing anything else worth mentioning. QuietHere (talk) 23:04, 6 March 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. Star Mississippi 18:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somnath Kundu

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

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Working film professional, but not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since a SOFT delete would likely be challenged, let's try for a stronger consensus to avoid that step
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from RS. // Timothy :: talk 07:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources available in either English or Bengali. 111.92.118.94 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Act Now For Ranow Movement

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

Community organization stub, lacks sources showing it meets GNG or ORGCRIT. BEFORE showed a lot of social media activity, but nothing showing notability from independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Subject is mentioned in connection to other issues, but nothing indepth. There are mentions in blog post/contribution type web sources often from individuals associated with the org. // Timothy :: talk 12:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even by Philippine standards, I'm not sure if this will pass notability, as I couldn't even find enough coverage about this group. So, delete for me for now. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ANFR were crafted to raise awareness to the initiatives being done to protect and preserve the 7th largest lake in the Philippines and one of the home of the smallest fish in the world Batoenonghistoryador (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Batoenonghistoryador: How do you know this is true? // Timothy :: talk 07:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good hits on GNews and GNews Archives. Hits on Google are LinkedIn and Facebook. I got a Bicol Mail hit but Bicol Mail just seems to be a local newspaper. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ANFR is recognized by the TAYO Awards of the Philippines as one of the finalist of the Search for Ten Accomplished Youth Organization in the Philippines for making a greater impact to the community through different development opportunities in the community driven by volunteerism and sustainable development. Batoenonghistoryador (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:08, 11 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subrata Majumdar

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

BLP, no indication of notability, No references with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs should always have clear notability from independent RS. // Timothy :: talk 12:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passes neither WP:NPOL nor WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:10, 5 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khowai govt english medium school

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

Fails GNG and NSCHOOL. BEFORE showed directory listings, government websites, nothing from independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Article itself makes no claim towards notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are more than 14,89,115 schools run by Govt. of India. It is not necessary to make wikipedia articles on them unless they get significant coverage. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any WP:SIRS coverage of this institution Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 8 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Vella

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

Seeing nothing that indicates that this subject has any notability. Being a family court judge is not enough to have an article, also there's nothing here. Marleeashton (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Malta. Marleeashton (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete per Marleeashton

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 13:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since only being a judge is not enough to have a Wikipedia article. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deemed notable by WP:JUDGE as serving as a judge at a national level. Malta has a bench of 24 judges for the whole country of which Vella is one. The fact that he is a family law specialist is irrelevant. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm undecided here. Yes, he does meet WP:JUDGE. However, that is clearly only designed to cover countries that have more than one level of judiciary (as most do). As Malta does not, that would mean that following the guideline blindly would mean that all Maltese judges are inherently notable whereas judges from other countries who have equivalent status are not, which seems a little strange. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are a small country, but they have a correspondingly small judiciary of only 24 judges. In addition, there is a junior level of magistrates below them, from which Vella was promoted. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magistrates are not part of the judiciary, which is why they're not called judges. My point is that, say, an English circuit judge is not considered to be notable per WP:JUDGE because England has three tiers of judges above his tier, yet the cases he deals with are no different from those dealt with by the Maltese judges. Yes, Vella does clearly meet WP:JUDGE, and I'm not disputing that, but in these circumstances I'm not sure that the guideline is a useful or sensible one. Of course the judges in a tiny island nation have national jurisdiction; it would make no sense for them not to have. Usually I'm all for WP:JUDGE/WP:POLITICIAN, but there are always some exceptions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he has national jurisdiction as you say. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... also has biographical coverage in media in his country. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:JUDGE - end of. Ingratis (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject has sufficient WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV by independent WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY and satisfy WP:GNG. With the conditions of WP:JUDGE also satisfied, this is a clear keep backed by policy. I could consider deletion if there were a lack of WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV or if the subject didn’t meet WP:JUDGE. However, for the reasons I laid out above, there is WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV and the subject meets WP:JUDGE. Shawn Teller (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets criteria for WP:JUDGE, which does not contain an "except when the country is very small" clause. Joyous! Noise! 17:30, 11 March 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!} 05:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Primary

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

This is not a useful disambiguation page, nor is there a useful article for this to redirect to.

Some states (such as New Hampshire) have notable presidential primaries referred to as "STATE primary", while some others (such as California and Louisiana) have unique primary systems for state elections referred to as "STATE primary". Neither of those apply here. While Texas has held plenty of presidential primaries, people don't really talk about "the Texas primary" as its own thing. Texas also uses a normal system for statewide primaries that is not unique, so we don't have much coverage of that on Wikipedia either. Therefore, there's no real primary topic for this term, and no useful articles to disambiguate between, so this page should be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The articles need to be fleshed out for the sake of completeness. Granted, some Texas GOP primaries are more important to others. That said, Texas has long been a presidential timber state. And in general disambiguation articles pertaining to chronology (Which "Texas primary"?) are an important encyclopedic feature. kencf0618 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to related Texas caucuses, maybe moving that to Texas two-step (politics) or Texas primary and caucuses. (Full disclosure, I discussed the situation regarding this and some other "X primary" pages with Elli yesterday, but was not asked to comment here.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant violation of WP:PTM - search box would be better for this term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PTM. This is a totally invalid disambiguation page with no good entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:50, 5 March 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 deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protidiner Bangladesh

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

Moved from draft by creator, company is two months old, no indication of passing WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dainik Protidiner Bangladesh Patrika People's Republic of Bangladesh Government Information is a daily newspaper approved by the Ministry of Information of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. SayeedMollik (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment The article doesn't make this clear, but although the printed newspaper is two months old, it seems to have been an online newspaper before that. One can find passing mentions in other newspapers going back to at least mid-2022 of Protidiner Bangladesh journalists being members of this or that journalist's association. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete Searches in English and Bengali found nothing deeper than passing mentions, other than stories based on the press release (in other words not independent) about an editor being appointed,[70] and the short blurb in Jago News 24 about the first print edition hitting the streets. As of August 2020, there were 3,194 newspapers in Bangladesh, according to the Registration Branch of the government Directorate of Films and Publications. This is one of many which are not notable. That may change in time, but for now it is WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment the draft's creator has been blocked as a sock. S0091 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Protidiner Bangladesh is currently the most popular newspaper in Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.138.125.199 (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the most popular newspaper in Bangladesh? Oh come on, its not that popular in the country. Mehedi Abedin 03:53, 5 March 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. Sandstein 08:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'Vaune Amory

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor league football player MNewnham (talk) 03:10, 6 March 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. Sandstein 08:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vidal Hendrickson

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shaquille Adams

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no clear evidence of notability for the footballer of this name. Best sources are SKN Vibes 1 and SKN Vibes 2 which discuss him getting a red card for fighting and subsequent punishment. He is not addressed in detail in these two sources, both of which are from the same website. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 19:59, 9 March 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) Enos733 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Miller

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

This looks like a case of being notable for one event (her flashing at the Scottish Parliament).[71] Her physiotherapist and comedy careers do not seem notable enough. Carpath Dwelling (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worthy for charity work, but ultimately non-notable MNewnham (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep article includes references for career sustained since 2013 in a variety of media secondary and sector resources( with no recourse to The Scotsman or Dailymail) including BBC etc. Notable for unusual and interesting work, activism and award winning comedy performance.Melissa Highton (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Health and fitness, and Scotland. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep raising awareness of a taboo health subject through comedy and training of medical staff. Adequate independent citations to support inclusion.

Kaybeesquared (talk)Kaybeesquared

Keep Clearly notable for several events, not just one. Many of the references are for her career. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only notable, but definitely has adequate citation to support notability. Disagree with OP and reasoning by MNewnham.Historyday01 (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looking at the article and references, I don't think it can be said she is only notable for one event, and there seems to be plenty of cited coverage that would identify her as a notable activist. Dunarc (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject is WP:NOTABLE beyond one event as evident with sustained WP:SIGCOV by independent WP:RS. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:26, 11 March 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. Sandstein 08:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bosque, Arizona

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

All evidence is that this was and is a rail spot and nothing more. Barnes identifies it as such, and I can't find any thing in the area besides the tiny cemetery. Not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of anything more than a rail siding and corral at this spot. (Note to closer: Please also delete from List of places in Arizona (B) and Template:Maricopa County, Arizona instead of just delinking.) –dlthewave ☎ 19:46, 4 March 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. Too many of the "keep" !votes are not policy based ("it's interesting", "I like it", etc. On the other hand, the nom's case that this does not meet WP:NLIST and has issues with WP:NOR is rather convincing and not adequately rebutted. Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest novels

AfDs for this article:

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

I've been attempting to clean this up for a bit, but after some further thinking, I think it would be better to delete it for a multitude of reasons. (And if not deleted, I think there are some grounds for setting better criteria on the article). Here's why:

1. This article presents a bit of a conundrum. How does WP:VERIFY, WP:NOOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:CALC apply here? Obviously, for the title of the "longest in the world", that's a fairly exceptional claim. However, if we go by verifiable word count, we find many minor novels that no source supports being called the longest. Things like a A Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight which several sources say has over three million words would be the longest. This differs from basically every reliable source that say À la recherche du temps perdu (the Guinness record holder) is the longest. Would it be right for a Wikipedian to go against these sources when there are verifiably higher word or character counts? Does WP:CALC apply here (where 3 million is higher than 2 million), even when it goes against sources? How can we compare word count methodologies?

2. There is also the issue of word counts themselves. Some have been "estimated by Wikipedians" (e.g., by using 250 words per page), but they are not noted in any reliable source. Firstly, I think it is a bit weird to have the criteria include any book over 500,000 words. (There are quite a lot of books (many, upon many, not listed here) that exceed that limit. I think the top fifty or so would be a better indicator, but I digress.) But aside from that, many books (especially some less-notable ones like Joseph and His Brothers) don't have any verifiable word count. So if the word count is not verifiable, should we include it? Sure, it would be easy to assume a 5,000 page book meets that word count, but it would not be verifiable.

3. The biggest reason is that it does not meet WP:NLIST. Yes, there are many webpages that have a top ten list, but these often mirror the Wikipedia article. I cannot find any actual scholarly or popular reliable source that actually delves into a listing of large books. Certainly, the concept of "longest novel in the world" is notable (perhaps explaining what candidates there are per reliable sources), and I am not opposed to that article. But that isn't a list of simply "large books".

Sorry for the long post (possibly the longest in a while), but I felt it would be good to explain why I would delete such a seemingly useful and decently-popular article based on policy. (There's also another issue on the languages to use; English translation versus original language versus largest versus non-Latin scripts, etc. but that may be an editing decision.) Why? I Ask (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do feel regret saying this as it has clearly been a lot of work creating the page, however in my view it is unencyclopedic and unnecessary. First and probably most importantly is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because there are no sources that show a methodology to determine book length, the editors on the page have made one up. Secondly, it's essentially indiscriminate and contradictory. On the talkpage books are dismissed due to self-publishing and yet one of the largest books listed is from a web-published serial. Finally, I believe it is unfortunate because it is highly likely that the content will be copied in a list in a published source, which will then become circular references for the WP page. We don't need to do that or assist listicles. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it was I that added Worm, since it is a fairly notable publication that has been the topic of scholarly sources (not just some random schmuck's Super Smash Bros. fanfiction). There was a small discussion on the talk about adding it, but a couple people objected since "no source called it a novel". I added a couple sources stating that yes, it was considered a novel. But aside from that, you are right. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list would be acceptable if it were a list of books identified as longest novels by reliable sources (e.g. longest English novel(s), longest Chinese novel(s), longest graphic novel(s)), but instead it seems to be awash with original research and a ranking mechanism invented by Wikipedia editors. pburka (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep Plenty of lists on wikipedia. Why not keep this too? BlackAmerican (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an actual reason to keep besides a rationale explicitly listed at WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID? Why? I Ask (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to justify a differing opinion from a wiki essay which could as stated in the essay be a minority opinion? BlackAmerican (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you absolutely do need to justify that terrible rationale. Just because an essay includes it does not mean it isn't a fallacy nonetheless. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of Arguments to Avoid is not a wikipedia policy. It is an essay. I believe this list is good enough to have an article based upon its conent and organization. BlackAmerican (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the content and organization is fine, then that's different from voting to keep because "Wikipedia has other lists". (Although, you still need to justify that.) However, even if that essay didn't exist, your delete rationale would still be fallacious (several types, including the fallacy of relative privation) and unacceptable for an actual debate. But, I digress. Still, show me a source (something that's required by policy) that shows books above 500,000 words have been discussed as a set? (WP:NLIST is a guideline, after all, and per policy, editors should attempt to follow guidelines). Why? I Ask (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article includes plenty of relevant sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is one that meets WP:NLIST? Aside from Guinness, where is the one that says "largest book". I added a good portion of those sources, and I'm saying it doesn't qualify for an article. The sources are literally just there for word count, but we really can't compare sources against each other that may use different methodologies. That's likely WP:SYNTH. And this argument is another one explicitly listed at WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). Why? I Ask (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per through explanation by nominator. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article meets notability requirements and gets plenty of views so it has a readership. Article does need to be reworked, but there is salvagable content, tnt is not needed. // Timothy :: talk 11:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to which sources prove notability as a list is met? If you're going to disagree with me, you must provide sources that back up your reason to. You can't just assert something contrary and not prove it. And also, this is another explicitly poor reason per WP:POPULARPAGE. The number of readers is not a reason to keep a page. Also, how would you fix the core issues of the page? Why? I Ask (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No objection to the move suggestion below.
// Timothy :: talk 07:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you are someone that is going to vote (either keep or delete), please read WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID before voting so we can actually have a discussion. These keep votes are so poorly formed, it's ridiculous. I shouldn't have to make this comment nor have I ever had to cite this essay more than once in a discussion. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the list is useless without any kind of qualifier. English novels? By page count? What if a large typeface is used? Too many variables and no clear sources with methodology on how to measure novel length. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree with all of the points you've made, deleting the page isn't necessarily the answer, these are issues that can very much be fixed, maybe not easily but it's possible. Please see the essay linked on the essay you've cited (WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID) under Surmountable problems: WP:Deletion is not cleanup. I would again like to point out what others have said, essays are editor created and not guidelines and guidelines aren't rules. Viatori (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide a manner to fix them. You can't just vote to keep because you think there's a way to fix it. There's also an issue with sourcing: you haven't provided any sources. Your vote is unhelpful and poorly made because it doesn't even show the possibility of fixing the article.

And in the case of your defense that WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, you're right, but that doesn't apply here. The issue isn't that it's poorly written or has a lack of sources on the article. It's that no sources are even presumed to exist and the core of the entire page is largely original research. If I were to remove the original research, the page would be empty. If you want to vote keep, that's fine. I'm not against keeping this cool page if it complied with policy. But your vote hasn't proved how it could (e.g., meet WP:GNG or fix the WP:OR). You can't just say vaguely that problems can be fixed.

(Also disregarding essays and guidelines without a good reason to back it up (since they aren't "rules" per se) is literally the main argument people use when they don't have an actual consensus-based reason to keep it.) Why? I Ask (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the page is an interesting topic to have! I like it and it helped pique my curiosity :) 128.54.215.57 (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... At the risk of bludgeoning more than I have, that is not a reason to keep. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "list of novels considered the longest" and require sources describing the novel as the longest. The general idea of a "longest novel" has been discussed much more than the set of "the longest novels", and there appears to be a lot of dispute in reliable sources over what counts as such. Said list would likely satisfy WP:NLIST and allow us to dodge points 1 and 2.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: Why not just create that list and delete this one? pburka (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: The history of this article is salvageable for content and sources. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: I agree that that's a better idea, but I still am not able to find many sources on that. Inputing "longest" and "novel" or "most words" and "book" (among other thing) in various search databases turned up completely dry. Were you able to find many sources? Why? I Ask (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's two. [72] [73] The fact that neither of these fanfictions are included on the current state list despite being the subject of reliable sources covering their status as the "longest novel" is illogical. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: I somewhat agree and disagree about the nature of fanfictions. But at the same time, if we were to have a list of "novels considered the longest", I do think there should be some sort of cut-off or category for "actual" books. Sources about long fanfiction are decently plentiful. Sources about long novels aren't. Searching further, using the quoted text "longest novel in English" did pull up a small handful of results, but nearly every single source all points curiously to Clarissa. No other book (except for one mention of Suitable Boy) was seen. This basically means the entire sourcing supports three novels: Clarissa, Suitable Boy, and À la recherche du temps perdu. (Note: "longest novel in other language" did not pull up any results, so I question whether English translations or non-English books will even be able to be added). However, I still do not believe WP:NLIST is met. The sources that call these the longest only include that title in a single sentence mention, so there is no indication they have been actually discussed in-depth or as a set. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"List of works of literature considered the longest" might be broader? The Mahabharata is noted by The Globe and Mail in a headline as being the longest poem. [74] Also, it's not our job to determine what is and is not an "actual book". That is the job of the sources, which appear to disagree wildly about the nature of fanfictions vs novels vs poetry and the boundaries between each. And if "sources about long fanfiction are decently plentiful" then you're basically admitting the article satisfies WP:NLIST if we included fanfiction. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put actual in quotes because there was long-standing consensus to dis-include it, not that I necessarily fully oppose it. However, the difference between novels and poems is pretty clear. More vague is fanfiction versus novels which I can not currently find a reputable source that says whether they count as novels. The Slate article you linked differentiates the two, though, so I think most would agree that novels and fanfiction are two seperate entities. (But outside of further research, I am not going to make a hard stance). I would still split fanfiction (which is defined as amateur writing based on an existing work of fiction) from original (including derivative) works published by professional authors if not purely based on readership and the current state of sourcing. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This discussion is full of ways to improve the article. As long as those are possible (limit to what reliable sources say, stop estimating word counts based on page count, require independent sourcing, etc.), we're in WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP territory. Not seeing a good case to WP:TNT what's there currently. This is not an endorsement of the current version of the article, but of the subject of the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of novels considered the longest per User:Chess. In the absence of a definitive criteria for weighing competing claims, it is the claims themselves that are notable. BD2412 T 20:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I am definitely not opposed to this idea, but I worry that non-English books (especially in regards to Asian literature) will be somewhat overlook per the systemic bias in many literature sources. Is this a decent worry to have? Or should we just blanket say that there needs to be multiple sources that call a work the longest? Why? I Ask (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's how all of these kinds of lists ought to be managed in my opinion, as it's the only way to avoid OR. Simply follow the sources (even if they're contradictory!) and don't develop our own rankings. pburka (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "List of novels considered the longest" or a similar title per Chess. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move - I am not going to say anything that people above haven't already said. But I created an account today just to be able to voice my opinion on this article. That being said, sorry if there are any errors or of this isn't the proper way to vote or reply.

I have been a frequent visitor of this article for about a year now, as I have gotten obsessed with trying to read the "Top 50 Novels Written in English" for my own personal challenge. The concern for having Non-English books being overlooked is a fair and understandable issue. Clearly proving my point by stating my personal challenge. I will say though, that the ability to sort and organize all of the books on this list (word count, language, volumes) has been great as well as being a nice conversation piece when someone asks me "What other books are on that list?" Not to mention that I have started to look into the books in other languages to see if there are English translation, in case I start the down the path of just trying to read the longest books ever. I have had this page open on my phone for month because I reference it often.

I would just hate to see the information that is on this list get tossed in the bin, with it moved to another article it can at least be offered up to potential new contributors and/or people like me, who have weird challenges that they put themselves through. Bassmanvoh (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've certainly chosen the proper way to contribute to the discussion. That said, your argument is essentially a version of WP:USEFUL and fails to address the nominator's concern that the topic isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. pburka (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move - This topic is definitely interesting and a sort of guide for us bookworms who love reading huge but well-plotted novels. Although everyone's taste in genre is definitely very different from each other, it is a very interesting list for bookworms. This article definitely doesn't deserve deletion in my opinion. I have added some books myself in the list although people have removed 2 or 3 of them. The article definitely needs a few modifications like separating the novels and novel cycles. Language should not matter if it meets the criteria of exceeding 500000 words. I am very glad to see that the article has removed the column on the number of pages as page count is definitely very unreliable. As a lazy editor of this article, I suggest that this article must be kept and some modifications must definitely be made by better editors than my lazy self, especially the separation of the true long novels from the novel cycles. Another point is that we must keep in mind that the authors and publishers have different views and end up dividing the long novels for various differences in opinions and reasonings. My opinion is that if the author considers any multi-volume work to be a single work, for example, The Neapolitan novels, then those novels should be included in the list out of respect for the authors' true wishes. I hope you all find my suggestions useful. Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.237.36.248 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interesting topic, clearly with a lot of noteworthy titles involved.WP:HASPOT.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being interesting is not a grounds to keep per WP:INTERESTING. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to link me to a list of positive arguments that you feel I'm allowed to make (I feel I should be able to make any) for why an article should stay, I can take a look at then, if that answer is not suitable.KatoKungLee (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please! Your input is valued. But please remember to make sure your main points explain why this article meets specific criteria, guidelines or policies! Why? I Ask (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can link me to a list of approved arguments, I can take a look.KatoKungLee (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates are good starters! Why? I Ask (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "keep"/"move" opinions above do not address the WP:NOR and WP:NLIST issues this article has, as explained by the nominator. WP:NOR is a core policy that local consensus cannot override. "It's useful" and "I like it" are not valid reasons to keep. Sandstein 08:00, 11 March 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. Procedural close, you need to nominate categories for deletion consideration at WP:CFD, this forum is for articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child pretenders

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

Can't find any sources using or defining this term and not written in an encyclopedic manner Freedom4U (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Lanza

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

Luna finished last in the pentathlon at the 1920 Olympics with a score of 91, some 73 points higher (worse) than the gold medalist. Fails both WP:GNG, WP:SPORTBASIC (no SIGCOV in article, only databases), and WP:NOLYMPICS (no medal). Cbl62 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for Olympics. ––Cbl62 (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This kind of participation is not notable enough and the article is doomed to remain an "eternal stub". Waterdoyle (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Modern pentathlon at the 1920 Summer Olympics as an WP:ATD, unless further coverage can be found (e.g. in newspapers). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I would normally be fine with a redirect, it doesn't make sense when, as here, the name is common and there are other persons with that name who have equal or greater claims to notability. It is not doing readers a service if they are searching for the author/scholar Adriano Lanza (see here) to be redirected to a page on an obscure competition in the 1920 Olympics. Cbl62 (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was written by Lugnuts. I don't know if anything involving him should be deleted right now considering how high profile and sensitive his situation has become. I really have to question why one of his stubs is being put up here when there's probably tens of thousands of stubs that could have been nominated. The article passed 2012 standards and was here for years without a problem, yet is being deleted under new standards that did not exist then. It's not fair to judge an article that already passed based on new standards, since the standards did not exist at the time the article was created. If a rule is made tomorrow that all articles have to contain the world "jello" in them or be deleted, everything would have to go. We can't have this here.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Consensus can and does change. As for the concern about WP:JELLOMANDATE, this is simply reductio ad absurdum. Cbl62 (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOLYMPICS. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whether or not this meets outdated guidelines from 2012 and whether or not the original creator is banned are both besides the point, here. I've searched and can't find anything towards WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Since WP:NOLY is also failed, we have no place else to go here. It's an easy decision. Delete. I also oppose redirect per Cbl's point above that there are many people with this name with a similar level of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- Going by the new rules this doesn't pass notability, but I am of the opinion that considering the online Media isn't as loud as this during that time for news coverage and documentation. If it passes the old rules it shouldn't be deleted.Epcc12345 (talk) 06:53, 10 March 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!} 03:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Urs Meile, Beijing-Lucerne

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). WP:Before does not reveal significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The article is WP:PROMO. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a quick BEFORE reveals social media posts, calendar listings and database listings, but I'm not finding anything in the way of SIGCOV in RS that is about the gallery other than what is self-published. The most interesting factoid found is that the Beijing gallery was designed by Ai Weiwei. (Maybe a redirect depending on if that has coverage)? Will continue to research via BEFORE to see if anything substantial turns up. Netherzone (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ding, Xiaojie 丁晓洁 (2012). "麦勒画廊" [Galerie Urs Meile]. Oriental Art 地方戏艺术 (in Chinese) (1): 52–53. ISSN 1005-9733. Archived from the original on 2023-03-04. Retrieved 2023-03-04 – via CNKI.
  The abstract notes from Google Translate: "Recently, Galerie Urs Meile exhibited Ai Weiwei's wooden sculpture "Tree" (2009-2010) in the Art Kabinett section of Art Basel Miami. As one of the earliest European art brokers involved in the development of Chinese contemporary art, Galerie Urs Meile not only introduced a group of influential Chinese contemporary artists like Ai Weiwei to the world, but also provided this art platform to many talented and creative artists. Young emerging artists. And introduce their art works to more international audiences. Keywords: international; cutting-edge; exchange;"
2. Kou, Mingjin 寇明瑾 (2007). "乌斯·麦勒：道路就是目标" [Urs Meile: The way is the goal]. Oriental Art 地方戏艺术 (in Chinese). No. 19. ISSN 1005-9733. Archived from the original on 2023-03-04. Retrieved 2023-03-04 – via CNKI.
  The abstract notes from Google Translate: "In 1996, Urs Meile had the idea of entering the field of Chinese art because of an accidental phone call from his friend Mr. Sigg, and then brought the Meile Gallery he established in Switzerland in 1993 to China. It has been more than ten years since today, and the steady development of Galerie Urs Meile made Us Meile feel that his original decision was a wise choice. In 2006, Urs Meile inaugurated the Beijing gallery, which doubles as an office and a residence."
3. Hu, Yidao 胡一刀 (2008). "穿越那道墙——麦勒画廊" [Through the Wall - Galerie Urs Meile]. China Interior Decoration World 中国室内装饰装修天地 (in Chinese). No. 2. ISSN 1006-2122. Archived from the original on 2023-03-04. Retrieved 2023-03-04 – via CQVIP.
  The abstract notes from Google Translate: "Modest and low-tech construction Galerie Urs Meile covers an area of 1,700 square meters, with a trapezoidal base divided into four small second-floor studios of 200-400 square meters. This is the fourth building completed by Ai Weiwei in Caochangdi Village. The whole building is a brick-concrete structure, and the exterior wall composed of large areas of gray bricks reveals some red bricks, showing a mottled of mixed feelings."
4. Reviews of exhibitions at Galerie Urs Meile:
  1. Wang, Hongzhou 王宏州 (2012). "少番、谢南星双个展" [Shao Fan and Xie Nanxing Double Solo Exhibition]. Oriental Art 地方戏艺术 (in Chinese). No. 23. Archived from the original on 2023-03-04. Retrieved 2023-03-04 – via CQVIP.
    The abstract notes from Google Translate: "On November 10, Galerie Urs Meile held the first solo exhibition of the artist Shao Fan at Galerie Urs Meile, "Shao Fan's Paintings in the Way of "Reviewing the Old"" and the exhibition of artist Xie Nanxing's recent paintings "The Second Meal" whip"."
  2. Gygax, Raphael (2013-11-13). "Qiu Shihua: Galerie Urs Meile". Frieze. No. 12. Translated by Grindell, Nicholas. EBSCOhost 102672515. Archived from the original on 2023-03-04. Retrieved 2023-03-04.
    The article notes: "In Lucerne, however, this was the seventh exhibition at Galerie Urs Meile with new works by the artist – eight on canvas (all Untitled, 2009–13) and four on paper, the oldest dating from 1980. ... In the gallery’s main space, viewers faced a row of seemingly white, monochrome canvases. On closer inspection, a broad spectrum of lighter and darker shades of white emerged, some with a hint of blue or pink. Depending on viewpoint and lighting, the striking thickness of the paint and the dense texture of the pictures became visible."
  3. Spalding, David (September 2006). "Ai Weiwei: Gallerie Urs Meile". Artforum. Vol. 42, no. 1. p. 395. ProQuest 2577399644.
  4. He, Fiona (June 2019). "Wang Xingwei: Gallerie Urs Meile". Artforum. Vol. 57, no. 10. pp. 311–312. ProQuest 2603946861.
  5. Dongdong, Sun (December 2015). "Yan Xing: Gallerie Urs Meile". Artforum. Vol. 54, no. 4. Translated by Liu, Chelsea. p. 279. ProQuest 2572473696.
  6. Chien, Constance (September 2017). "Cheng Ran's 'Diary of a Madman' at Galerie Urs Meile". Modern Painters. Vol. 29, no. 9. p. 156. EBSCOhost 125051630.
  7. "Cao Yu's 'I Have an Hourglass Waist' at Galerie Urs Meile". Modern Painters. Vol. 29, no. 12. December 2017. p. 166. EBSCOhost 126708995.
  8. Xu, Tina (April 2018). "Shao Fan's 'Recent Works' at Galerie Urs Meile". Modern Painters. Vol. 30, no. 3. p. 121. EBSCOhost 09536698.
  9. Lu, Carole (May–June 2007). "Wang Xingwei: Large Rowboat: Galerie Urs Meile Beijing-Lucerne". ArtAsiaPacific. No. 53. p. 120. EBSCOhost 505249026.
  10. Archey, Karen (June–August 2014). "Liu Ding: Galerie Urs Meile". Frieze. No. 164. p. 199. EBSCOhost 96574690.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Galerie Urs Meile, Beijing-Lucerne (simplified Chinese: 麦勒画廊; traditional Chinese: 麥勒畫廊) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Switzerland. Netherzone (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per coverage found by Cunard, though if the article is about a company, WP:NCORP suggests that some evidence of non-specialised coverage is also required. However, this isn't a brand new business advertjsing itself, but a business that has been around for over 30 years. Sionk (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources found by User:Cunard above, I've added a few other sources to the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per coverage above. I have added some references to the article and reduced peacock terms. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are reliable and demonstrate WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG. The article should be improved, not deleted. If the article subject was without evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, the case for deletion would be stronger. What prevents me from voting to delete, though, is the fact that WP:RS above satisfy WP:SIGCOV guidelines. I’m open to alternative opinions of course, but my assessment as of now is in favor of keeping. Shawn Teller (talk) 00:06, 11 March 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. Star Mississippi 23:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badia Spices

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

Fails WP:COMPANY with very little media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Florida. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Miami Herald profile more than qualifies as WP:SIGCOV on its own. (It seems to have been a major print feature.) The Sun-Sentinel article seems reliable; the back half of it is non-routine and also mentions a previous feature of the company. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed with the assessment of the coverage in the article. This is certainly a notable company. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 06:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article sucks! However, there are lots of sources at newspapers.com and elsewhere. I was going to clip some to add some to the article but recent "improvements" at the wikipedia library are giving me fits. In any case, this is a case of a very poorly written, poorly sourced article, but it doesn't have to be, the sources exist, we just need to improve the article rather than delete it.Jacona (talk) 22:32, 10 March 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. Star Mississippi 23:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bend Radio Group

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

It seems hard to imagine the owner of a group of stations in a single small market could possibly meet the GNG. (Not helping matters is that much of the content is the schedules for its stations, which are against policy.) A malformed AfD nomination by an IP in 2014, saying The page is a business advertisement, was reverted without follow-up; the same IP nominated it for CSD for a similar reason two days earlier, which was declined. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Each station warrants an article, as a licensed broadcast station, but the group itself does not appear to be notable in any way, and the schedule information is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Flip Format (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of date and unusual article for a local radio group; local stations should be sourced and updated within their own articles. Nate • (chatter) 18:55, 4 March 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.