Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 30

< January 29 January 31 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam songs recorded by Vani Jairam

List of Malayalam songs recorded by Vani Jairam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you spent zero minutes improving the article and copy-pasted the same comment into 11+ AFD discussions. Looks like you haven't learned anything from your "User talk:Abbasulu". --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V and is also a directory-style listing of non-notable songs that adds no value to the project Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm strongly opposed to massive deletion of such lists without putting any effort into actually improving them per WP:BEFORE. It is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, which needs sourcing, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. I suggest that we start a project of sourcing them all instead of deleting a page which, indeed, so much time and effort have been put into (and yes, to me it is a consideration). Other than that, the notability of the songs as suggested by the nominator and one of the voters, isn't as important (in lists of works, no requirement exists for all the works to be notable - the subject is more notable, as per WP:NLIST: "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable") - fact is, by the way, many of the films are notable, so actually NFILM might be more suitable than NMUSIC. If by then no sources are found then I believe the right course of action would be redirecting it to one main list which would include sources entries only. Deletion is the easy route and I do not support it. Shahid • Talk2me 11:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got any WP:RS showing significant coverage that you'd like to share to support your claim that this list is notable? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per Nom and Shshshsh. The subject is the list. Compiling a list from a conglomerate of sources, OR using a source that is considered unreliable does not offer proof of notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per Shahid reasoning. This article is well sourced. I've checked the references. That website lists all the songs recorded in Malayalam sung by various artists and legitimate. You can't delete any article only because you don’t think It's insufficient or non-notable. In this way, we should think considering even List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift for deletion, because wikipedia is not a directory or database of everything. More references must've been added in this article to add to further notability. At this point it's just a good article, but may evolve as an amazing article if it is improved by a lot of references more. Valiaveetil (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCK of Abbasulu Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to M. K. Thyagaraja Bhagavathar. Anyone is free to merge whatever content to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎🙃 23:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by M. K. Thyagaraja Bhagavathar

List of songs recorded by M. K. Thyagaraja Bhagavathar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 30 January 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 S. C. Krishnan. Anyone is free to merge whatever content to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎🙃 00:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by S. C. Krishnan

List of songs recorded by S. C. Krishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 30 January 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 Radha Jayalakshmi as an WP:ATD. Anyone is free to merge whatever content to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎🙃 00:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi

List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Songs have been copied from sites similar to discogs and no songs have standalone notabilty. Complete non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:V. scope_creepTalk 01:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Radha Jayalakshmi. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Part of the list can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per Nom and Scope Creep. WP:NLIST: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources WP:No original research: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Not opposed to a "redirect" if consensus swings that way. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to T. R. Mahalingam (actor). Anyone is free to merge whatever content to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎🙃 23:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by T. R. Mahalingam

List of songs recorded by T. R. Mahalingam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per Nom. These "created lists" fails WP:NLIST, ...a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources... Not opposed to Redirect or a weaker merge to parent article. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NLIST and WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 TT me 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Less Unless (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kannada songs recorded by P. Susheela

List of Kannada songs recorded by P. Susheela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:NLIST and WP:V. No effective sources. Content has been copied from commercial sites and almost none of it has standalone notability. scope_creepTalk 21:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - deletion, as I said before, is not the course of action, expansion is. Until we agree on one firm policy concerning all lists of recorded songs by singers, we shouldn't treat this one any differently. Shahid • Talk2me 15:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the you are making an argument from policy. It is unsourced. If it was kept, all the non-sourced content will be removed. scope_creepTalk 21:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find that the policies cited are not very relevant at all. WP:NOTDATABASE isn't very relevant here IMO. WP:SIGCOV indeed is - that's why I'm saying this is how we should work. And I don't think blanking content is the right course of action, tagging them should be enough, and inviting community members to contribute should help. I'm an inclusionist, I must confess. Shahid • Talk2me 01:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are exactly relevant and your lack of experience is evidenced by the fact that you don't understand what your talking about. scope_creepTalk 16:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Speaking of policy then, read WP:NPA. You are hereby warned to refrain from commenting on editors and restrict yourself to discussing content. This message was rude and uncalled for, and such behaviour will not be tolerated again. My years of experience, contribution and achievements on Wikipedia speak for themselves, but I don't recall having asked for your opinion. Hope it is clear now. Shahid • Talk2me 20:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Sorry, I put the wrong name into the Afd Stats, as it was pointed out. Sorry. scope_creepTalk 22:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 30 January 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam

List of Tamil songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since this is an extension of List of songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam, they should have been grouped into one single AfD. The rationale for keeping them though remains the same. WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply here, since this isn't "an indiscriminate collection of information". It is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, which needs sourcing, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. I suggest that we start a project of sourcing them all instead of deleting a page which so much time and effort have been put into. Other than that, the notability of the songs isn't as notable - fact is the majority of films are notable. Shahid • Talk2me 11:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NLIST, and does not come close to meeting WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 TT me 13:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to S. P. Balasubrahmanyam. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Part of the list can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tracing upon the web is not Wikipedia works, nor how it ever worked. That is a really poor argument. It is assumed per WP:V that every sentence is reference. That is definition of WP. scope_creepTalk 12:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST, WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Another structured list from this editor with no effective references. Again for some reason, what poor sourcing there is a done on a film for some reason. Content has been copied/pasted from clickbait, WP and discog/IMDB style style sites with no effective filtering to determine what is notable and what is not. Fails WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14. Wikipedia is not place for this type of content. scope_creepTalk 12:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom and scope creep. Comments: Sources can verify content and not advance notability as provided by NLIST. The article can be "richly referenced", with all manner of sources, some maybe even indirectly related, but If these sources don't satisfy WP:NLIST: Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list., The sources will suffice for content but not satisfying notability. I am not sure why Abbasulu keeps insisting "the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information"", when common sense and evidence clearly support a made-up list from one or more "unidentifiable sources" are undeniably an "indiscriminate collection of information". Maybe reading the essay Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information and the included Other policies are still in effect. The artist may be phenominal, a legend, a master, and any other flowery word we add (and I personally would agree), that does not make the many lists any more notable. Please Note: Wikipedia:Notability and the included GNG and SNG, uses evidence from reliable and independent sources, per the policy of verifiability. The guideline enjoys a community-wide consensus, currently having involved 833 editors, 2,439 watchers, 11,296 pageviews in the last 30 days. Arguing for inclusion would be better presented in that article with an RFC, to gain community consensus, over I like it, or trying to ignore the "rules" that is still subjected to the more broad community consensus. Thank you, -- Otr500 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this completely non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Less Unless (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telugu songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam

List of Telugu songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

style="color:brown">(Talk to Spider)]] 23:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Keep - since this is an extension of List of songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam, they should have been grouped into one single AfD. The rationale for keeping them though remains the same. WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply here. It is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, which needs sourcing, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. I suggest that we start a project of sourcing them all instead of deleting a page which so much time and effort have been put into. Other than that, the notability of the songs isn't as notable - fact is the majority of films are notable, so actually NFILM might be more suitable. Shahid • Talk2me 11:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NLIST, and, with the other lists by this editor, WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 TT me 13:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to S. P. Balasubrahmanyam. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Part of the list can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable singer, just needs sourcing and more information. Not a fan of emboldening films in song list articles as it's not about the films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another massive unsourced list that fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV and WP:V. It is impossible to tell what is notable and what is notable from this list. Completely subverts the idea of Wikipedia. Its like something of Everthing 2. No effective filter to determine what is notable and what is not. Simply a copy/pasted article from places like discog style sites, clickbait sites and sites withing Wikipedia. Really a complete of policy and indicates WP:CIR issues, by an editor who doesn't really want to follow policy. scope_creepTalk 12:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has sung the most number of songs in this language. And the article is richly referenced. Valiaveetil (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)sock strike Girth Summit (blether) 17:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment Singing a lot of songs is quantity≠quality. Nate • (chatter) 15:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom. Fails NLIST. Comments: The article can be "richly referenced", with all manner of sources, some maybe even indirectly related, but If these sources don't satisfy WP:NLIST: Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list., The sources will suffice for content but not satisfying notability. The artist may be phenominal, a legend, a master, and any other flowery word we add (and I personally would agree), that does not make the many lists any more notable. Please Note: The Wikipedia:Notability and the included GNG and SNG, uses evidence from reliable and independent sources, per the policy of verifiability. The guideline enjoys a community-wide consensus, currently having involved 833 editors, 2,439 watchers, 11,296 pageviews in the last 30 days. Arguing for inclusion would be better presented on that article with a RFC than trying to change community consensus at these various local articles. Thank you, -- Otr500 (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very poorly sourced, doesn't meet WP:NLIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam

List of songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perfectly notable as a list, nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Otherwise it just needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • Talk2me 12:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the article should be improved, not deleted. Each song cannot have reference but was already mentioned in the related main film/album article...Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If content cannot be referenced, then it must be removed. Per WP:V All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Jayanthkumar123. But I also think it can be easily referenced, and that's what needs to be done. I also cannot undersrand why so many articles belonging to the same group are put up for separate AfDs if even the rationale is the same across the board. Shahid • Talk2me 14:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and here too we see the same pattern by the nominator. This page is nominated, and while its sub-pages could have easily been included here, they are nominated separately:
  • List of Tamil songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam
  • List of Malayalam songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam
  • List of Telugu songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam
  • This is a frustratingly messy string. Shahid • Talk2me 15:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best, draftify. Currently fails WP:VERIFY, and I would agree that NLIST is not satisfied either.Onel5969 TT me 13:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to S. P. Balasubrahmanyam. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Part of the list can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I realized the same editor was making the databases. They fail WP:NLIST. Sometimes Shahid people complain about mass AFD's, but not usually over the independent listings. I will withdraw my "Delete" if there is mention of the lists in reliable and independent sources based on the group, as a group or set, then there would be cause to show notability.
  • Comments concerning " well referenced". Sources can verify content and not advance notability as provided by NLIST. The article can be "richly referenced", with all manner of sources, some maybe even indirectly related, but If these sources don't satisfy WP:NLIST: Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list., The sources will suffice for content but not satisfying notability. The artist may be phenominal, a legend, a master, and any other flowery word we add (and I personally would agree), that does not make the many lists any more notable. Please Note: Wikipedia:Notability and the included GNG and SNG, uses evidence from reliable and independent sources, per the policy of verifiability. The guideline enjoys a community-wide consensus, currently having involved 833 editors, 2,439 watchers, 11,296 pageviews in the last 30 days. Arguing for inclusion would be better presented in that article with an RFC, to gain community consensus, over I like it, or trying to ignore the "rules" that is still subjected to the more broad community consensus. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per reasoning by Onel5969. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil songs recorded by Vani Jairam

List of Tamil songs recorded by Vani Jairam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Zero effective sources and none of the songs have their articles i.e. standalone notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:V. scope_creepTalk 01:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since this is an extension of other similar pages, they should have been grouped into one single AfD. The rationale for keeping them though remains the same. WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply here, since this isn't "an indiscriminate collection of information". It is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, which needs sourcing, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. I suggest that we start a project of sourcing them all instead of deleting a page which so much time and effort have been put into. Other than that, the notability of the songs as suggested by the nominator isn't as important (in lists of works, no requirement exists for all the works to be notable - the subject is more notable, as per WP:NLIST: "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable") - fact is, by the way, the majority of films are notable, so actually WP:NFILM might be more suitable than WP:NMUSIC. Shahid • Talk2me 11:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 TT me 21:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vani Jairam. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Part of the list can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you or anyone else looking to keep this article got any evidence of actual significant coverage for this topic? Also, please can you confirm what you mean by the article being well sourced? The article is extremely badly sourced and is not suitable for Wikipedia from a WP:V perspective. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NLIST. No sources discuss this subject in particular. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References do not support that the grouping meets WP:NLIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Needs improvement though. Less Unless (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rape chant

Rape chant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You can find plenty of journalistic accounts of this sort of thing happening (usually by undergrad boys at a college) and I do not in any way underplay the severity of such crass calls for violence. The issue for me is that you can have any number of journalists say some people did a thing, like make a Hole in one. Notability comes from analysis of the topic. Otherwise we're letting the media drive a neologism. If we wait for secondary sources we can get actual sources about the phenomenon, not just cases where it was observed. All I could find in that regard is a single article in Girlhood Studies. I wish the embittered SPA who created this would not have moved this into mainspace from draft so we wouldn't have to have this discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Crime. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: This has been moved precipitately to main space twice now, by the creating editor. In the period between the draftification and their migration it back to mainspace they worked on it to improve it. The nominator has encapsulated perfectly the issue with neologisms, even ones as far back as 2011, the first reported instance. WP:NOTNEWS applies. We need more than just news reports of occurences. We need to see and record what is said about the topic, not simply reports of the fact that ut has happened in several places. That is what being an encyclopaedia article is about. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this article should be preserved and improved. These chants occur world wide but few talk about them. It is almost a given to just let them slide and think its boys being boys. This 20 minute TV segment looks into the incidents in Canada at depth. https://www.tvo.org/video/rena-bivens-rape-chant-controversy Sleuthman (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there sources you can point to that talk about the phenomenon of rape chants (i.e. please don't include news reports on just one instance, but some sort of analysis?) For example an academic paper? (Google Scholar or the Wikipedia Library are the places to find such things, if you are new to this). CT55555(talk) 00:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an example of a source that was included in the article. https://trauma.blog.yorku.ca/2013/11/rape-chants-prevalent-on-university-campuses/
    It explores the concept Sleuthman (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Warning to other editors that the content in the link above is not easy reading!
    But it does suggest notability, and does include analysis, and although a "blog" it's quite an academic one. This does push me towards saying this should be kept. I wonder what @Chris troutman thinks? Is that a second good source, in your opinion? CT55555(talk) 00:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sleuthman The difficulty with this source is that it is a blog, and unlikely to pass WP:RS, though it assuredly does discuss the phenomenon in addition to an instance of it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a university blog though to be fair. Info about author. "Shira Yufe is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Clinical Psychology program at York University" Sleuthman (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sleuthman My view is that it can be treated as a weight in the scale pan of retention, but does not in and of itself do any of the heavy lifting required. The author pedigree is excellent, but that does not turn it into RS. For me it ranks as a primary source with factual authority, but that is as far as out goes. We may use primary sources in a limited manner, See WP:PRIMARY. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I called it a "blog" too, but when I look into it, the "about us" says "The Trauma & Mental Health Report is a weekly online magazine published out of York University in Toronto" The author is a professional and a PhD candidate. Upon reflection, I'd argue (based on common sense, maybe policy I am unaware of would prove this wrong) this source seems reliable. CT55555(talk) 00:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See my opinion about heavy lifting in reply to Sleuthman above. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CT55555: It's a good source and the sort of stuff the article needs. As others said, you can argue if the blog is reliable but let's just say it is. If this article had five or six more sources that talked about the phenomenon instead of two dozen news accounts of this criminal shameful misbehavior, we might have a case for notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment maybe I am missing something, but the article has a dozen very good sources. Apparently the objection is that the sources don't sufficiently delve into the reasons for the behaviour (?) This appears to be a novel requirement; I am currently working on an article about the Qing military, yet am unaware of any specific requirement that the article delve into the reasons why the Qing thought they needed one. Perhaps someone can shed some light on this. Meanwhile, if I don't get back to this before the close, please count this as a weak draftify, hopefully with better guidance as to what is being asked for Elinruby (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elinruby for me the difference is subtle but also simple. We can record any number of events of this nature, but all we get is a list, and a set of news items. Or we can record both events and what is said about the phenomenon in significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the phenomenon, and we get an encyclopaedic article about the phenomenon.
    One is news, and WP:NOTNEWS applies. The other is being what we should be, a proper tertiary source. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: Allow me to clarify: encyclopedia articles collate the reporting of relevant sources about a topic. Per WP:SYNTH, we cannot use a mix of primary sources to promote the editor's theory. What we get is the current version: on this day according to this source this thing happened. We don't tell the reader what the thing is or why it occurs or the factors involved because the sources don't necessarily tell us and we can't synthesize. Getting back to your example, your sources (presumably) talk about the Qing military. The sources then describe what that was. You're not (presumably) reading about individual Han soldiers during the Qing era and then advancing your own analysis about what the Qing military was. For rape chants, none of the journalism say what the phenomenon is except to say that students chanted a thing and the newspaper labeled that a rape chant. This article couldn't even be a list of times a rape chant was uttered because the subject fails WP:NLIST. Our articles about Stars could not be a list of times people looking into the night sky and saw stars. Our encyclopedia requires analysis. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chris troutman Would you consider adapting your nomination to be for draftification in order to give the creating editor and others some time leeway to work on this without the pressure of fighting a nominal deletion deadline? They may be able to find sources that you have not. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would not. There is no loss in deleting an insufficient article and there is no deadline. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the sole source found by the nominator mean they did the searches and concluded this is not a notable topic? Clarification on that would be helpful to me. @Chris troutman also what outcome do you recommend? Draftify? Deletion? Improvement? My first impression is that this is maybe (and maybe not) a noteable topic, so improvement while at AFD would be the best outcome. CT55555(talk) 00:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: My apologies; I usually write clearer, more formulaic nominations. As I elude to in my sentence "All I could find in that regard... I did a BEFORE search and found many more journalism accounts than the article currently uses. However, I still find because there is no only one secondary source analysis of the phenomenon the subject fails WP:GNG. Though there are plenty of accounts of rape chants I don't know when, if ever, someone will write comprehensively about the phenomenon so I've nominated for deletion. This editor or others can start fresh at what point they can make a case for notability with better source material.
  • Weak keep After asking a few questions above, reflecting on the answers, I find the one mentioned academic source, plus the York University hosted report both provide analysis of the phenomenon enough to just barely pass notability. I know many require three good sources and this is an argument made on one good source, one arguable source, plus a bunch of news articles. This said, I would gently encourage the author to move this to draft or agree for that to happen and get the article in good shape before moving it into main space. specifically incorporating more content from the sources I mention. Drafity would also be an acceptable outcome to me. Deletion, I do not think, is necessary. CT55555(talk) 00:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are two sources that explore the phenomenon in some depth. Both sources include the opinions of academics. https://trauma.blog.yorku.ca/2013/11/rape-chants-prevalent-on-university-campuses/ AND https://www.tvo.org/video/rena-bivens-rape-chant-controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleuthman (talk • contribs) 01:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage you to add content from them into the article (or to move into draft and not feel the time pressure). CT55555(talk) 01:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second that advice, both parts of it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 01:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a third source. It's academic
Anderson, Lyndsay, and Marnina Gonick. "The Saint Mary’s Rape Chant: A Discourse Analysis of Media Coverage." Girlhood Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, 2021, pp. 52-67. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/saint-mary-s-rape-chant/docview/2494215632/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.3167/ghs.2021.140106. Sleuthman (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify the article barely passes WP:GNG as CT55555 mentioned. I would say that the article can be further improved in draftspace so that it doesn't "hang on the edge" of GNG and if the article is in good quality, then it can be moved to mainspace. Tails Wx 01:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am leaning towards k**p, but that is not my official !vote yet. I found another academic source, not sure if it has been brought to the table yet. A chapter, Rape Chant at Saint Mary's University: A Convergence of Business School Ethics, Alcohol Consumption, and Varsity Sport, by Judy Haiven, in the 2017 book, Sexual Violence at Canadian Universities Activism, Institutional Responses, and Strategies for Change, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, ISBN 9781771122856. Link here[1] Sorry, no page numbers, but search for the term, "Rape Chant" and you will find it (Chapter 5). I'll see what else I may be able to find. It would be a good idea to search in other languages than English, if other editors would like to help with that since it is an international phenomenon. Netherzone (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was another scandal at Dalhousie University that resulted in a task force and a report. I am not certain "rape chant" is discussed however. Elinruby (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Elinruby, I found this re: Dalhousie U: Outrage over SMU Frosh Chant in the Dalhousie Gazette,[2], where the phenomenon is described as: highly offensive chant condoning the rape of underage women - so basically it's "rape chant". Also this: Pretty disgusting: Dalhousie students react to allegations of sexually violent Facebook posts, in SaltWire:[3] which states in relation to those who want to pass it off as "humor": “Why is it, because they’re women, that it’s okay and funny to talk about committing sexualized violence against them? Why is it funny to have a rape chant?”. I am wondering since there have been several incidents in Canada if someone would be willing to search in French Google to see if anything turns up through a French language search. I am also thinking that if it is not kept in its present state, or draftified, perhaps it could be merged into Rape culture. Either way, when I consider if the encyclopedia would be better off with or without the article, I'm leaning towards that its retention would be an improvement to the encyclopedia, and an asset for our readers. Netherzone (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically Google should also show me French-language results, but this works better when I use a French-language browser and search terms, which is not the case at the moment. I will take a look specifically for this at some point in the next couple days. Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also a super quick search on Google Scholar produces these results:[4],[5], [6], [7], therefore I think the nominator's analogy that the term is similar to "Hole in one" is flawed, rape chant is clearly a cultural phenomenon. Admittedly, I have not yet read all this hits on scholar, however it seems clear that scholars are indeed analyzing this phenomenon in a significant way. Netherzone (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: I don't think posting a list of search engine results you haven't read is appropriate. Looking at those hits, perhaps there is enough coverage about the incident at St. Mary's University but I don't see coverage about the phenomenon that WP:42 requires. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman, fair enough. I'll be traveling over the next couple days, which is why I did a "super quick search" in advance of departure. If I'm able to do a deep dive into these results I'll see what I can find that may (or may not) be in-depth. I'm fairly certain I can get to it before this AfD closes (which is why I have not formally !voted yet, and only commented). However, it does seem that there are scholars who have published in academic journals in addition to Girlhood Studies, such as Gender & Society, English Studies in Canada, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, as well as additional books. I'm not certain how many of the journals are behind paywalls, but will investigate. Netherzone (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • !keep (open to draftification, renaming, deletion, etc). Google has less than 4k hits for "rape chant" and many of the top ones are actually things like "“Pro-Rape” chant"; pretty much all are primary sources. There are a bunch of passing mentions in google scholar, but I'm not seeing anything standout. I'm not adverse to the content per se, but it (a) needs a better name and (b) needs a more solid secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The chants are almost uniformly about raping or sexually assaulting women 24.85.234.209 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The place for an article that is just barely within general notability is article space, where it is more likely to be improved than in draft space. I usually agree with deletion of articles that were moved back to article space after draftification, but in this case, the article is within GNG and can be improved in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify to see if it has potential down the line. As is, I don't think GNG is met, and I agree with Chris that significant coverage would need to be scholarly to give the required depth of coverage needed (let alone to make an actually decent article.) Otherwise, this feels like it cannot exist outside of a larger topic, such as rape culture. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 Here's a final source that's academic. Anderson, Lyndsay, and Marnina Gonick. "The Saint Mary’s Rape Chant: A Discourse Analysis of Media Coverage." Girlhood Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, 2021, pp. 52-67. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/saint-mary-s-rape-chant/docview/2494215632/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.3167/ghs.2021.140106. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleuthman (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article can be improved based on sources that exist. I've downloaded multiple articles from academic journals via Google Scholar, but honestly, after going through about half of them, I simply do not have the stomach to deal with this subject as it is extremely triggering. While I do think the article should be kept, I do not want to argue the point. The article should NOT be deleted because Rape Chant it is indeed a real phenomenon that has been analyzed. It meets WP:GNG. I very seldom respond to Wikipedia matters emotionally, but come on guys, this is a real thing not just a neologism. And it is certainly not equivalent to a "Hole in One" - a very unfortunate choice of wording for an analogy. I also think it's strange that the article creator was called "embittered" whether or not they are a SPA, and I think that comment should be struck since I'm not finding anything in their contributions to indicate embitterment. Please assume good faith of the article creator. Netherzone (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to Wikiproject delete sorting Sexuality and gender CT55555(talk) 23:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. The sources provided in this AFD seem to indicate that GNG is met, so the article should be kept per WP:NEXIST. Total understandable why the article is underdeveloped compared to the available sourcing, given the subject matter. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Less Unless (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindi songs recorded by Vani Jairam

List of Hindi songs recorded by Vani Jairam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Songs have been copied from sites similar to discogs and the only 2 songs out of several hundred have articles. No effective sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 00:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a notable list. There's no way you can delete this list and want other ones kept. Systemic bias on WP against India-related articles must be addressed. Shahid • Talk2me 11:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE. Beyond that, what is your evidence for such a claim. As is, you're just castibg aspersions, which is not allowed. Maybe there is truth to your statement, but how you're approaching it is inappropriate to handling this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty bad WP:OSE argument. The Beatles, for example, have a million different sources directly discussing their catalog. I'm not seeing anything here. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - indeed, my vote above should have included more detailing backed up by policy to support my keep. As for my other point about systemic bias, I totally stand behind it and would still maintain it exists on Wikipedia in relation to India-related articles, and this article as the other, similar lists, is just one example. Let this be clear - it is directed at no one in particular. My comment is a general observation, and is nowhere an accusation/aspersion (as suggested above) against the current nominator, who I'm sure means well and is not at all to be blamed. It is a bigger problem which needs to be addressed, that's what I meant, and I'm happy to clarify it here. It is based on the large amount of AfDs related to Indian cinema or India in general (and was even noted recently by a closing admin on a recent film AfD). As for this page, it is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, which needs sourcing, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. I suggest that we start a project of sourcing them all instead of deleting a page which so much time and effort have been put into. Shahid • Talk2me 15:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the songs have articles, they are completely generic and none of the songs have references. The whole article has no effective references. scope_creepTalk 22:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 30 January 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telugu songs recorded by Vani Jairam

List of Telugu songs recorded by Vani Jairam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Similar rationale to the last time. These songs have been copied sites similar discogs and shops selling the product. Fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV. No effective sources.
  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The community consensus is generally that these song lists shouldn't exist in instances when none, or almost none, of the songs have their own article. Lists like this don't provide much context to the reader, it's just a random list of names without much meaning to them. Also, a vast majority of the entries are unsourced, which I've already explained to you is a non-negotiable problem on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the page needs sourcing, not deletion. Even if every song is not necessarily notable in and of itself, the entire list and I'm sure sources are available to prove it. WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply, IMO. Shahid • Talk2me 01:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 TT me 21:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vani Jairam. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Part of the list can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the obvious WP:NLIST notability issues, this list also runs afoul of the "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" provision of WP:NOTCATALOG. SnowRise let's rap 15:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew, re cross-cat that it existed, but not what it was called. Illuminating point. scope_creepTalk 17:59, 5 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! 23:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - just an exhaustive listing of non-notable songs that has no benefit to the reader. I also echo the WP:CROSSCAT and WP:V concerns raised above. I can't see how anyone can advocate keeping this article after reading these policies. Policies, of course, are of more importance than guidelines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam songs recorded by Sujatha Mohan

List of Malayalam songs recorded by Sujatha Mohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST. No effective references. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 00:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sujatha Mohan. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Part of the list can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect as per SBKSPP, fails NLIST and WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 TT me 21:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Abbasulu that this is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And it probably does not violate NLIST, as lists of songs recorded by X are typically fine. Nor is the reference to NMUSIC in the nom relevant to whether the list is appropriate. But as long as it is unsourced, I cannot verify that this list meets NLIST and I cannot !vote to keep given that as it stands it fails WP:V. Sig by user:Rlendog at 15:53, 2 February 2023‎ Added by scope_creepTalk 12:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telugu songs recorded by Sujatha Mohan

List of Telugu songs recorded by Sujatha Mohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Abbasulu that this is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And it probably does not violate NLIST, as lists of songs recorded by X are typically fine. Nor is the reference to NMUSIC in the nom relevant to whether the list is appropriate. But as long as it is unsourced, I cannot verify that this list meets NLIST and I cannot !vote to keep given that as it stands it fails WP:V. Rlendog (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the reasoning in the nomination. I appreciate that "redirects are cheap", but this doesn't seem to be a useful search term. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5, sock of User:Raliegofficial22 Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RPD Entertainment Ltd.

RPD Entertainment Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record company. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RALIE G (Rapper) who owns the company. ... discospinster talk 22:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. If I hadn't nominated the RALIE G article for AfD, I would speedy delete this article as an utterly non-notable company without any trace of reliable sources. (The sources in the article are self-published or don't check out.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see RALIE G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Raliegofficial22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The article may have been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. —C.Fred (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and South Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. citations are not good. One was from 1962 Billboard, so it was not for thr same company, so I removed it.Threevian (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the aforementioned reasons. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note to those who have raised issues about sources, at the time I write this, the only sources in the article are primary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom, as well as salted article. Silikonz💬 02:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 16:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Absolutely non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 22:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural keep. Too soon to renominate. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 10:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Stanford

AfDs for this article:
George Stanford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Couldn't find additional sources online, and most, if not all sources in article are primary or unreliable. First nomination notes an article from the Atlantic, but I was unable to find this. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete no charted singles, no critical coverage or album reviews in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep Previous nomination closed as keep less than a month ago. It's unlikely that the situation has materially changed since then. Per WP:RENOM, it's appropriate to wait at least six months before renominating. Jfire (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep far too soon for a re-nomination. Also the reference to Atlantic was to myself and the sources I identified in that discussion:" Weak keep as did find George Stanford has been the subject of NPR programming as shown here, also an AllMusic staff written bio here, and a AllMusic staff album review here imv ", Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is too soon since the previous AFD. Please ping me if there are exceptional circumstances and I will reconsider. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Although questions have been raised about the sourcing of this article (with varying opinions expressed), I see a consensus among editors to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clydesdale (1819 ship)

Clydesdale (1819 ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found of actual notability, sources are primary or passing mentions. Being the largest vessel of a short-lived company, carrying some passengers of little notability, and basically doing what trade ships do (including, as was very common in these years, colliding with another ship), all amount to not much in the end. Fram (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. The article on Clydesdale by Sindall (1937) is not primary and not a passing mention. The coverage in Ships of the East India Company (2001) also appears to be substantial. The coverage in the 19th century (contemporaneous), 20th century, and 21st century (young) show sustained interest in the Clydesdale. gidonb (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious -- While I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the content, I remain dubious of whether any merchant ship of a past era is notable unless there is something quite special about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep jengod (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi jengod, thank you for sharing your opinion on this AfD! Could you still explain, even briefly, how you reached it? gidonb (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 sources, 2 explanatory footnotes, an infobox, a little table, and a mention of Mauritius are things I like to see in a Wikipedia article. jengod (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the quality of the sources that matters, not the number. An article could have 50 sources, but if they were all unreliable, it would be the same as having zero sources as far as notability is concerned. Conversely, an article could have 3 sources and be notable if they're all significant coverage, reliable, independent, and secondary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying that your assessment is based on the sources and for pointing out that there are other desirable elements in the article. For the most part, the assessment should be based on the quality of the sources. Hopefully that is why you listed these first. If the sources are of high quality, 2 can be sufficient. In some cases even one! gidonb (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Keep voters have asserted that coverage "appears to be substantial" without any evidence. Most of what is cited to Hackman 2001 isn't even about the ship! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proposal for deletion makes clear that significance is subjective, and notability is mutable. I consider the references in the histories of Greenock to be notable and significant to the authors: there are hundreds of vessels they could have mentioned but did not mention. Clydesdale was worth mentioning; it had meaning to the readers at the time. As for mutability, the article by Sindal is based on Captain Rose's journal or logbook. There may be more, but all I could access was a Google snippet view, and the book in which it appears is rare and not in any library to which I have access. So does notability depend on whether an editor lives in city with a library that has a particular book, or if relevant material is out of copyright? Furthermore, when one deletes an article, it cannot improve, even if someone can find the book, and if there is more in the article. Earlier today I found a photo of an 1820 painting of "Clydesdale of Glasgow" by the noted marine painter Robert Salmon. The permalink is: [8]. The Paul Mellon Centre Photographic Archive had a project of photographing art as it came up for auction, and this is a photo of the painting when it came up for auction in 1984 at Sotheby's. The photo is available under a Creative Commons license, but I cannot see any point in trying to figure out how to get permission to add it to the article and how to add it to the article when editors remark casually that they are "dubious of whether any merchant ship of a past era is notable...", and the article may well be destroyed shortly. Should the picture come up for auction again and a colour copy be available for adding to the article, that is just too bad. What is the point of correcting typos or grammar, improving readability, or adding background and contextual information, or adding pictures to any article that is not already certified as notable? Acad Ronin (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time to transcribe now but I just added a photo of text from the Edinburgh Advertiser about the "Clydesdale of Glasgow." If nothing else it'll exist in Commons as a resource for a future article about this painting LOL jengod (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can't find free online access to some of the sources cited in the article, but User:Gidonb says Sindall (1937) is more than a passing reference and I see no reason not to AGF on his assessment. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆. It's a magazine article on the ship, 2 pages long (477-478), in the series "Ships of the Past". gidonb (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sourcing IMHO. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources. NYC Guru (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate vote struck. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Shockingly, this AfD has been open since January 16. It has been relisted twice! All this while no case has been made for deletion. The intro says sources are primary or passing mentions. I do not know how that squares with a magazine article on this very vessel. An editor says I remain dubious of whether any merchant ship of a past era is notable unless there is something quite special about it.. This sounds exactly like the reverse of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, only that the argument here is that there mustn't be sources. Either way, an argument to avoid. Much better to let the sources lead wherever they lead. On such wobbly grounds, the nominator and just one respondent support straight deletion. Now let's assume that one is extremely strict and that fine sources are just not good enough for you. Even then, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, straight deletion would NOT be a recommended path forward. Concluding: WP:RECENTISM is an ENORMOUS problem around Wikipedia. AT LONG LAST, someone writes a fine article on a historic subject. Why try to destruct it, disregarding both sources and policies? gidonb (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Argo (1806 Liverpool ship)

Argo (1806 Liverpool ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of any notability found. Fram (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Another NN ship. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So bizarre the double standards around here for notability. Every car make in history and every beauty pageant is notable but not this merchant ship that was stolen and used for slave trafficking and that sank and her crew was rescued? Crazytown. jengod (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources to justify this article's retention. The keep "argument" above makes no policy or guideline-based arguments and I have therefore ignored it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I would prefer to Keep, but perhaps a careful merge will limit the unnecessary destruction of information. I am still baffled to understand how destroying information makes an encyclopedia better, or makes it possible for the article to improve, but wiser, more thoughtful people than I apparently disagree.Acad Ronin (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What Merge target are you proposing Acad Ronin?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I would merge the article with the entry in the Argo ship index. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acad Ronin, I was hoping for a link so I don't have to go searching for a page you are referring to. I look at a lot of AFDs every day. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Argo (ship) Acad Ronin (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Refs are Sigcov. Failing that merge. Desertarun (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on available sourcing. Failing that, Merge into Argo (ship) per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. gidonb (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there seems to be SIGCOV in Inikori (1996). Failing that, Merge into Argo (ship) per others. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ficaia: Inikori has no coverage of Argo, it is used as a general source for the ladt two paragraphs which aren´t about Argo. Fram (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I just checked and Argo is listed in Inikori in a table of losses. To be fair, there is nothing in the listing beyond what Inikori could extract from Lloyd's List.Acad Ronin (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. Articles like this should not be nominated for deletion, as merger to list-article is obviously superior to deletion. As i noted in another if these AFDs. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Venezuelan

Swiss Venezuelan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small group, which doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have translated more information from the Spanish Wikipedia, and the article should meet WP:GNG. Henri Pittier, who is one of the most important geographers in Venezuela, was a Swiss-born scientist. The topic has notability and there should be plenty of information to continue improving the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not seeing how GNG is met. There are currently three sources cited in the article - two on Swiss members of expeditions in the 1500s and one for a 1940 population figure. This isn't significant coverage in my mind (and the topic doesn't inherit notability from notable individuals). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Topic lacks the in-depth coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any more sources to show that this topic meets the GNG. JMWt (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lenette Azzi-Lessing

Lenette Azzi-Lessing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP was recently moved from draft space by the page creator, and while the subject looks like a fine human being worthy of significant and detailed praise, the article lacks sufficient independent sources to justify inclusion in an online encyclopedia. A reasonable BEFORE doesn't find anything demonstrating the subject is any more notable than other clinical professors of social work. We see a number of Boston U sources and a Pell Center source, but these are connected directly to the employee subject. I don't see a single source applied or found which meets the standard for direct detailing in significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please notify me if better sources are presented. I'd be happy in this case to be proven wrong. BusterD (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BusterD (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that GPL93 draftified this at the exact second it was nominated for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curbon7 & BusterD You are more than welcome to move it back. I draftified because this is likely a paid/COI editor who unilaterally moved as draft to the mainspace without proper review. Personally, I don't see notability so if the AfD continues my vote would be Delete. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Moved back to mainspace. I see this very much the same way as does User:GPL93. I'm still okay with a draftify outcome (the subject seems a very kind and well-respected person), but I'm likewise concerned about the apparent UPE. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A possible alternative to deletion would be to redirect to a stub about the subject's book, which appears to meet WP:NBOOK with at least 3 reviews [9][10][11]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the redirect to the book, but doesn't that pass AUTHOR if the book has critical reviews? Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, having a single marginally-notable book and little other sign of notability likely falls under WP:BLP1E. Now, the subject here does have a somewhat respectable citation record (although it doesn't look to me like a pass of WP:NPROF C1). The Angels in Adoption award appears to be given to hundreds of people per year, and I don't think it grants notability. It's possible that someone could make a combined case for notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 19:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She should be validated against NACADEMIC. She has published but her h-index is very low (h8) and there is no evidence that she has accomplished anything notable in her field, at least nothing that meets those criteria. Her position at BU does not seem to be extraordinary. She is the chair of something called "Macro social work" but I fail to figure out how large this unit is that she is chairing. I doubt that makes a difference, though. Lamona (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Dhefiri

Abdulaziz Al-Dhefiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly sourced BLP with no indication of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Searches in Arabic ("عبد العزيز الظفيري") yield no apparent significant coverage of the Saudi footballer of this name. The best sources I could find were Kooora, a database source which SPORTBASIC would not regard as sufficient, and Aawsat, which mentions Al-Dhefiri only once. There is a Kuwaiti handball player with the same name who comes up in searches but I can find no indication that the Saudi footballer, subject to this AfD, is notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, lots found for the handball player, none for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mistook him for Ahmed Al-Dhefiri , wasn't able to find any backups source for him, delete seems appropriate.Epcc12345 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence that the subject is notable Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Aiesh

Abdullah Aiesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG require multiple WP:RS showing significant coverage. I am unable to locate even one. Aside from the Soccerway source, my Arabic searches yield FilGoal and nothing better. SPORTBASIC explicitly says that database sources are not sufficient so, unless these can be located, the article should be deleted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment GiantSnowman My search shows he was a football and was able to find this [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17][18] Some of the sources are Arabic so I wasnt able to drop any here because I can't read them. But most of the sources are statistics. But proves he really played football to me a Draftify or Soft delete look appropriate. Epcc12345 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per my nomination statement, SPORTBASIC states that databases do not confer notability Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is doubting he played football - only that he is notable. There is no significant coverage. GiantSnowman 08:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Constantia (ship). Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constantia (1822 ship)

Constantia (1822 ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this shortlived ship is in any way notable. Ships being wrecked was extremely common at the time, and nothing else seems to indicate a ship that warranted or warrants extra attention. Fram (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Fram (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coverage is exclusively primary, and at the time shipwrecks were a routine occurrence. There is no indication of notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Constantia (ship) per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Not notable enough for its own article. gidonb (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Had the wrecking appeared in a book of shipwrecks, the article would have been "notable", even if the book excerpt had been a verbatim quote from the press at the time. Although vessels were wrecked all the time, in this case all aboard survived. In researching this and similar articles I am struck by the interest among Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders in how they got to their countries. Because all the migrants on Constantia survived, they had descendants, some of whom in doing genealogies and family histories might well be delighted to find an article on the vessel that brought their ancestors. Also, this RfD should also have beenlisted on the Canada project where eitors with access to Canadian sources might have found interesting material.Acad Ronin (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please at least try to give a valid reason for keeping this as a standalone article, besides "I think it's interesting". I think train photographer Roger Puta, whose thousands of photos illustrate numerous Wikipedia articles, is very interesting, but he doesn't meet GNG and therefore only has a wikidata item. And this ship does not meet GNG either, but we should keep it just because you think it's interesting? You think every ship to ever exist is interesting. If this is the best you can do, these AfDs are going to continue not going your way because a closer cannot possibly give your vote any real weight. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, I can only find scant information about Puta; I'd like to include an article about him, but there isn't much. He passed away and the family chooses not to discuss it (I have some vague idea why, but it's nothing we can use to build an article here). Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Acad Ronin, thank you for pointing this out. Done! gidonb (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteMerge I don't see any indication of notability, unless some sort of secondary coverage can be found. Something in an old newspaper covering the wreckage, survivors, anything giving us a credible assertion of importance. If the article were about the shipwrecking itself (it could even be argued that it IS, since there's essentially no other content) it would be a clear A7. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Switching to !vote to Merge after further review. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per gidonb, allowing restoration and expansion if someone finds more to add. I just gave notice of this AFD at wp:Canada per suggestion/request above. Please do not close before editors there have time to respond. "Keep" would also be okay by me. Articles like this should not be nommed for deletion as merging to a list-article already including the topic is obviously better than deletion. "List-item notability" standard is lower than for standalone articles; keeping this in the list-article on ships of this name is obviously helpful as part of what Wikipedia does well, adds serious value. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Added a little, though not a game-changer. So far as I can ascertain there was no newspaper in Sydney NS in 1823 (where more detail might have appeared from the survivors). There is certainly material here to expand the section in Constantia (ship), and in List of shipwrecks in May 1823; I can see some also being relevant to articles on Acraman (Bristol merchants) and Shipbuilding in Quebec, when they come to be written, but it seems that, in the meantime, there is no room in WP for a healthy stub. Oh well. Davidships (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergios Hadjidemetriou

Sergios Hadjidemetriou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who briefly played as a professional but has spent the bulk of his career in the semi-pro/amateur levels of Cyprus, with no non-stats database coverage cited. To meet WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG, we require significant coverage. Google News came back with one hit, a trivial match report mention. Sigma Live mentions him once in a list of under-19 call ups, trivial youth coverage. Phile News mentions him only once, saying he "only played a few minutes". Lastly, Kerkida (translated) is a one-sentence transfer announcement. I can't find any Greek-language or English-language coverage that actually satisfies the guidelines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nia effect

AfDs for this article:
Nia effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article describes a marketing phenomenon relating to the familiarity of shorter brand names and nicknames. However, the subject of this article does not appear to exist. WP:BEFORE searches showed nothing relevant aside from Wikipedia mirrors, references appear to simply be examples (such as a patent trademark for "Coke"), and the titular "Nia" (apparently referring to the National Institute on Aging) does not mention the effect at all. The person credited for coining the Nia effect in the article is a "Georgian marketeer Giorgi Pirtskhalava", but the link is a Georgian football player, and most importantly, the user who made this page back in 2009 was User:Giorgi2000. AdoTang (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't appear to be a real "thing". all I find are La Nina sources (for the weather thing). This is a bunch of random facts strung together in an attempt to make an article. The National Institutes on Aging is a health related webpage and does not mention this at all. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd (though no deletion rationale was provided) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I can't find any indication that this is a real phenomenon and not some sort of hoax or attempt at self-promotion. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG in any case. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Quayyum Raja

Abdul Quayyum Raja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:22, 30 January 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! 08:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand Cirque (film)

Le Grand Cirque (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can only find a single review of this movie [19] and that appears to be a blog-type affair of doubtful authority. Absent some further 3rd party coverage, I don't think we are seeing notability here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews found in search. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changing to Keep based on newly identified sources below. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: entry in the Dictionnaire mondial des films; page on the Unifrance website; at least this review in English; various mentions related to its depiction of pilots during WWII. Seems really notable enough.MY OH MY 19:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are worthless, barely listings - but that review is useful. Might be enough with a little good will. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly indifferent: watched it once based on Clostermann being interesting, like the poster, did an article on a film released conventionally in a major film-making country because it seemed like an interesting addition, didn't think about it much more than that. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per vote by MY OH MY. A major French theatrical release, as confirmed by its elaborately artistic poster, its two-hour running time, a well-known director and familiar names in the cast. Here is its IMDb entry and here is its entry in French Wikipedia. Of course it needs additional inline cites, but its notability should not be in question. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
....I'm not seeing any sources of the type required by WP:NFILM. The frWP article would not fly here for lack of such sources. Database listings mean zip. IMDB is crowd-sourced and does not contribute to notability. The only usable source presented so far is the one additional review found. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My contention, which may or may not be supported by consensus, is that any film which is listed in at least three databases acceptable for inclusion under "External links", is by definition sufficiently notable for inclusion in English Wikipedia. It should be at least expected that such a film's entry is submitted by a user who is sufficiently experienced to format and categorize it properly as well as append at least one inline cite. Links to film reviews and other details can be subsequently added by contributors practiced in such matters.
As pointed out above by this entry's creator, it is a "film released conventionally in a major film-making country" and, glancing at its French Wikipedia entry, one can also see five links confirming this film's standing — Allociné, AllMovie, Internet Movie Database, LUMIERE and The Movie Database (under the title "The Big Circus", with a theatrical poster that is different from the one appended to the infobox). Another database, RadioTimes.com, also has a listing for The Big Circus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My contention, which may or may not be supported by consensus, is that any film which is listed in at least three databases acceptable for inclusion under "External links", is by definition sufficiently notable for inclusion in English Wikipedia All I can say to that is, good luck with rewriting WP:NFILM then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive any formatting/spelling faux pas please, as I cannot get the hang of the mobile version...

I am genuinely struggling to see why any film that's had a conventional theatrical release isn't automatically notable presuming something verifiable can be written about it, even if it's of low importance. It might be me but I am seriously struggling to see in what circumstances that could open up Wikipedia to a slew of unsuitable articles. The current criteria are somewhat contradictory and to some degree circular. It also seems like the notability criteria are overly skewed towards digitised English language sources. Common sense surely has some basis here, especially as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.

  • It can be verified that this film existed and had a theatrical release in France.
  • Peclet won an Oscar and both he and some of his other works pass notability, presuming those articles have been scrutinised properly and stable doors aren't being belatedly bolted.
  • Glostermann is a notable historical figure.
  • The film has a couple of minor quirks, being one of a very few to deal with the Free French Air Force, and for the oddity of being a French film with a large percentage of English dialogue.

I'm not going tooth and nail for a film that wasn't actually that good but I am bemused with this whole policy of drive-by notability notices from people who then largely avoid any interaction to address whether something can be salvaged. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep BNF Gallica has an extensive collection of old newspapers in France. This [20] talks about the film in the upper left corner, this under the Montargis heading along the right side [21]. This under Cinema in the upper left [22] Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There all small columns about the film, but it gained critical attention at the time, we have more than enough for a stub. The Gallica search has more than enough, this from Algeria talks about it, [23], second column from the left, about half way down. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the documents are funny, do a search for "Clostermann" in each and you'll find them. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we are getting somewhere! Rather than these strained monologues about how everyone should ignore WP:NFILM just because, here is some actual in-depth newspaper coverage. That should do it. Probably need to attach a footnote to these links though so readers know to search for the columns. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For many topics, a simple Google search isn't a good way to determine notability. This is clearly notable. --Michig (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 10:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals–Dodgers rivalry

Cardinals–Dodgers rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "rivalry" fails WP:V. Just because they are two of the oldest teams in the National League and have faced each other in the postseason doesn't make it a "rivalry". Reliable sources do not verify that it is a rivalry, other than "tbonesbaseball.com" and one ESPN.com blog post. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Missouri. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't searched for specific sources, but the article itself is incomplete as is this nomination. There was certainly a rivalry between the Cardinals and Dodgers in the 1940s, when the Dodgers and Cardinals went to the World Series 7 times between them, and of the 4 Cardinal pennants the Dodgers finished a close 2nd twice, and of the 3 Dodger pennants the Cardinals finished 2nd each time (one by a single game and at most by 5 games). Not only that, but the Dodgers general manager at the time was the Cardinals' former GM, plus the Cardinals were among the most notorious teams in taunting Jackie Robinson. There was also some degree of rivalry in the 1960s, when the Dodgers with Koufax, the Cardinals with Gibson and the Giants with Marichal were generally in the mix for the NL pennant. Rlendog (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found sources explicitly referring to a Cardinals-Dodgers rivalry: In 1946 this article refers to a Cardinals-Dodgers rivalry that has been going on for 6 years; this article from 1950 refers to the year in year out Cards-Dodgers rivalry now being at an end; this article from 1958 compares a basketball rivalry to the "old Cardinals-Dodgers rivalry in baseball"; here is a recent refernce to the rivalry "over the decades"; here is an article from 1992 referencing that this rivalry "is considerably more storied and traditional" than the then current Mets-Cards rivalry; here is an article referencing that the rivalry extends to the teams' minor league systems; here is an article stating that the Cards-Dodgers rivalry was "most ferocious" from 1941 to 1949; here is an article referencing a more recent iteration of the rivalry; here is a little article noting that radio listening figures demonstrate how intense this rivalry is; here is another rather oddball reference; here is an article referring to this as a "all-time National League rivalry"; this article refers to it as a "long-standing rivalry"; and there are many more.Rlendog (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article in its current form is a vast improvement from the state it was in prior to the AFD. Thanks User:Rlendog for finding and providing appropriate sources. Frank Anchor 17:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do see that this article has improved since I nominated it, but I still don't see evidence of a "rivalry" that goes beyond two teams playing against each other for a significant amount of time. The above Newspapers.com articles make throwaway references – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple newspapers over many years referred to this as a rivalry. Those are hardly "throwaway references". They were referring to a situation that they were currently aware of - that the Cardinals and Dodgers had a rivalry. Not to mention the more contemporary sources that recognize this as a rivalry. Rlendog (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I skimmed through Leo Durocher's autobiography and found him referencing the Cardinals as explicitly being the Dodger's rivals - and he was in about as good a position to know whether this was a "rivalry" as anyone - certainly better than us 65 years later. He also has some interesting stories related to the bad blood between the teams that may be relevant to add when I get a chance, although possibly UNDUE.Rlendog (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to the additional sources added since the article was nominated. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Mauno Koivisto. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jari Komulainen

Jari Komulainen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is notability tag in the article from February 2010. Since notability is not inherited I am nominating this article because the article says "He became famous by being married to the Finnish President Mauno Koivisto’s daughter, Assi Koivisto.". ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm hesitant to straight-up !vote "keep", since I'm not sure there is much of note to write about the subject despite the coverage I identified above. Unless someone objects, in the spirit of WP:PAGEDECIDE, I'd advocate for a redirect or merge to Mauno Koivisto with no prejudice against a future recreation of a standalone article if someone identifies content that actually justifies such a standalone article. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge As per Ljleppan. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Lawson (academic)

Sean Lawson (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG, and with a low citation count (except for one publication - of which he was one of several authors), and an h-Index of 14, I don't think that they meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 17:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 17:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until I changed it the article said that the subject was a professor, rather than an associate professor as he is. I don't have time to look further at an article that starts with such a lie. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One well-cited publication isn't enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see much else. The article as nominated also seems somewhat spun as a promotion for speaking gigs. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He seems to have a good start but as an assistant prof with only a relatively few publications, he just isn't there yet. His books are held in >150 research libraries; however, I also happen to know that research libraries buy every publication from the publishers of his books (Routledge and MIT Press), so this doesn't mean that his were individually evaluated. I would say that he's doing his job, but that alone doesn't meet NSCHOLAR. Lamona (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Ramakrishna Mission institutions. Consensus is that this article does not meet notability requirements to have a standalone article. Redirection has been proposed as a viable alternative to deletion with no opposition to the suggestion. Two possible targets have been suggested with no consensus in favour of one or the other. No prejudice against further discussion about the appropriate redirect target. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramkrishna Mission Ashrama, Kailashahar

Ramkrishna Mission Ashrama, Kailashahar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was declined at AfC, after which the article's creator moved it directly into mainspace. Was moved back to draft, since it isn't close to meeting GNG currently, but moved back immediately without improvement. Current sourcing has zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Searches did not turn up anything. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 17:45, 30 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Lee

Kristen Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notabilty. Googling the name I was surprised by the number of other people with this name; it was a while before this individual showed up. Apart from the Kirkus review (Which I believe contributes towards the books notability bu not necessarily that of the author) the refs seem to be all from educational establishments of wich they are an alumnus, which I would not class as independant. TheLongTone (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Kirkus review is in the "Kirkus Indie" program, which means the subject paid for the review, and it does not contribute towards notability. Spirituality and Health might be a reliable source (not certain), but one reliably sourced review does not make a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the infoTheLongTone (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything notable here. The awards are minor and one is from a semi-self publishing company that she published one of her books through (iUniverse). She doesn't meet NAUTHOR nor NSCHOLAR. Searches turn up zilch. Lamona (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it passes neither WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 TT me 15:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did not find reviews in reliable sources supporting WP:NAUTHOR, I am not convinced by the local awards, and I see little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AeroTime Hub

AeroTime Hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, lacks significant coverage online. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lithuania. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete appears to be a niche news portal; the only sort of coverage I can find to confirm this is [32], trivial coverage in Newsweek, a non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider .. Additional coverage of the news portal can be found here. AeroWiki7011 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    that's a press-release, not a reliable source. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AeroTime Hub is listed among the top Aviation News Websites. as well as among the top Aerospace blogs and websites. AeroWiki7011 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's also a blog, we need something talking about it in a general circulation newspaper, TV news program, scientific journal, book. Something along those lines. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can find additional mentioned of the program here:
TV News Programs:
TVP World - https://tvpworld.com/64015549/rock-rachon-1810 Watch from minute 30:56
AfricaNews/EuroNews - African investment in Aviation Industry [Business Africa] | Africanews
TVP World - https://tvpworld.com/64944972/rock-rachon-0612 Watch from minute 09:14
Written Source:
European Parliament - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/702569/EXPO_IDA(2022)702569_EN.pdf
Atlantic Council - https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/nato-priorities-initial-lessons-from-the-russia-ukraine-war/ (footnote number 10)
Journal Source:
Asian Perceptions of Gulf Security - https://books.google.lt/books?id=B2WcEAAAQBAJ&pg=PP46&lpg=PP46&dq=Clement+Charpentreau&source=bl&ots=dpe3SqZSyF&sig=ACfU3U3S2EJttIU7_l9P15pKggh4xuudsQ&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI2d7O6dD8AhXlsosKHejzDVU4ChDoAXoECBsQAw#v=onepage&q=Clement%20Charpentreau&f=false
Trump and Iran: From Containment to Confrontation -
https://books.google.lt/books?id=yw3MDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA108&dq=clement+charpentreau&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN56C76ND8AhUoiYsKHR-1DdAQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q=clement%20charpentreau&f=false
AeroWiki7011 (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't coverage of the website, they're articles/PDFs that contain links to the website. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider - I would like to direct your attention to the update AeroTime Hub article. AeroWiki7011 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean, that's the same article we're talking about deleting. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes correct, however the article has been updated with more references AeroWiki7011 (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP, references are primary, irrelevant and passing mentions, nothing at all in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:21, 31 January 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) 16:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ReRave

ReRave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find video game sources: "ReRave" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Weak notability; Kotaku is the only reliable source I'm seeing here, and even that source has questionable WP:SIGCOV. Prod disputed by recently created user with similar edits to article creator. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only other coverage I can find is in TV Tropes, which is a non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Kotaku coverage is barely in-depth - I can't tell if the "reviewer" actually ever played the game past the access unlock. Article author is socking, so no real hope here. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 13:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaifi Khalil

Kaifi Khalil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all possible criteria of WP:NMUSIC, PROD denied. UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about now? Added more stuff to establish notability. The article meets notability criteria for having 3+ independent reliable sources, secondary reliable sources and content for significant coverage, plus establishes 1 notability criteria for singers by having cited an international tour and 1 notability criteria for lyricists/composers by mentioning having written/composed a hit song with reliable sources. Another criteria for notability is introducing unique style of music, which is mentioned in article. What else is left? Uzek (talk)

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) 15:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zah Rozayy

Zah Rozayy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero reliable sources toward WP:MUSIC notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:40, 30 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Business and Economics Studies

Review of Business and Economics Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by article creator without stated reason but after addition of some material (diff). Some of it is incorrect (an impact factor is claimed, but the journal is not indexed by the JCR), the rest is trivial (e.g., inclusion in Researchgate, indexing by GScholar, etc). None of the references contribute to notability under GNG. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Business, Economics, and Russia. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. Not indexed by any selective databases, as far as I can tell, so fails WP:NJOURNAL. WJ94 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    I'd like to respond to a couple of points and provide clarification:
    - "Not indexed by any selective databases" - This point is not correct. In the additional material, it is stated that "The journal is included in the Russian Science Citation Index – a selective component of the Scientific Electronic Library ru:eLIBRARY.RU." Only some/selective journals from the eLibrary.ru are admitted to the Russian Science Citation Index - a selective database. GNG does not specify which selective databases should be taken into account and which should not.
    - "... incorrect (an impact factor is claimed, but the journal is not indexed by the JCR)...". There are no incorrect claims. In the additional material, it is clearly stated which impact factor is meant - with a reference to the source: Russian Science Citation Index. Yes, this is not JCR IF.
    - "no independent sources". This point is not correct. In the additional material, it is demonstrated that the RoBES journal is indexed by more than half a dozen well-established databases. These sources may not count for "selective" databases, however, they are definitely "independent" reliable sources.
    - RoBES papers have been cited multiple times: listed in the article papers have 30-50 citations in Google Scholar.
    - RoBES has a solid history of over 10 years of sustainable service to the worldwide economics community. Arguably, RoBES is one of the first English-language economics journals in Russia.
    Please reconsider. A. Bokov (talk) 21:00, 30 January 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) 14:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nuhu Muzaata

Nuhu Muzaata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN bio, PROD denied. UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - On first read-through it seems like an attack page WP:ATTACK PAGE. I haven't yet checked the sourcing, so am holding off on !voting at this time. Netherzone (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:TNT and WP:ATTACK PAGE, and failure to comply with NPOV. It is obvious that this is an attack page. The negative content about this individual is not supported by the citations which were cherry-picked to emphasize the negative attributes of this person, and omitting the positive attributes. That the article creator also vandalized the nominators user page four times[33] is evidence enough that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather that they have an axe to grind and are using WP as a soapbox. This article should not be retained in the encylopedia, as it was not created in good faith, and may be a violation of WP:NOT. Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Netherzone, and the terrible use of english throughout. -Roxy the dog 16:26, 30 January 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) 14:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 66 Laws of the Illuminati

The 66 Laws of the Illuminati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An "official" document by the Illuminati? Not really, no, some unknown has self-published this, and it has received very little attention, so isn't notable. The only somewhat interesting source seems to be this, which gives us no information at all about the writer, publisher, ... but just some, I don't know, clickbait? No actual journalism going on here anyway. No reliable sources seem to have given this book any attention and I can't blame them. Fram (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this almost appears to be a clickbait. There is no critical review of the book; simply having an ISBN means the book is published, nothing more. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no sources in Jstor or Gscholar. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BOOKCRIT, nothing at all in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the awful use of english that requires WP:TNT. -Roxy the dog 16:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Revels Group

The Revels Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company (described on its Crunchbase profile as "company co-founded in 2012 by Co-CEOs Jamil Davis and Matt Bauerschmidt an entertainment and media powerhouse") would appear to fail any or all of WP:CORP for the organisation itself, Jamil Davis and Matt Bauerschmidt for WP:ANYBIO. As always, please do prove me wrong. Pete AU User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have vastly improved this article from the initial version when nominated and added additional sources. Threevian (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJ94 (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. The first ref in the article is to a non-RS WP:FORBESCON source, the second ref is a Billboard interview with company personnel, with a superficial overview about the company provided "per Geffen", before a Q&A format and a list of producers and writers, which is limited WP:CORPDEPTH and a failure of WP:ORGIND to support notability. The third ref is a Billboard 'top 40' list that is trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, with a passing mention of Revels Group by someone actually listed. The fourth ref is a Variety 'New Leaders of 2022' source with one graf focused on Geffen and his two companies, including his quote plus another Geffen quote, so this is also trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH about the Revels Group and fails WP:ORGIND. The Revolt post about a party at a restaurant hosted by the company is not significant coverage of the company itself, and neither is the announcement of an "Executive Q&A: Jamil Davis, co-CEO, The Revels Group", or the Billboard and Black Enterprise announcements 1 2 of a co-hosted honorary brunch. An online search finds a brief/passing mention in Rolling Stone, a Billboard announcement of a co-curated event, a Billboard 'top 40' list that names a founder (but is still trivial coverage), brief mention in Variety related to an artist, and similar brief mention/announcement sources, but no sources with WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Per WP:SIRS, each source is subject to individual evaluation, and this collection of mentions, announcements, and other trivial coverage is not sufficient to support notability per WP:NCORP. Beccaynr (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument that being a fellow of the NYAM does not satisfy NACADEMIC is compelling and there doesn't seem so be anything else. Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gail B. Nayowith

Gail B. Nayowith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deprodded with the rationale that they are a fellow of the NY Academy of Medicine, which does not qualify for NSCHOLAR. Not enough in-depth coverage to show she meets WP:GNG, and does not meet any of the SNGs. Onel5969 TT me 13:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep She passed WP:NACADEMIC#3 as a fellow of the New York Academy of Medicine. I am surprised to see this article being nominated for deletion after pointing out to the nominator that the subject of the article passed WP: NACADEMIC as a fellow of the New York Academy of Medicine. This raises serious concerns about the quality of the review you do, @User:Onel5969. More concerning is that you are one of the most active new page patrollers. Inappropriate tagging and the nomination of pages such as this for deletion are two of the behaviors that drive away new editors. You really need to think about this and slow down. Shoerack (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the personal attack. And being a fellow of a local organization, such as New York Academy of Medicine, which literally has thousands of fellows, which is quite high for a local organization. Onel5969 TT me 14:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intended to be an attack. I apologize that it appears that way to you. That said, I'd encourage you to slow down on how quickly you tag articles with the notability tag. Shoerack (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoerack, please do not follow Onel to other articles, as you did as here and here. Following editors you are in disagreement with to other articles to disagree with them there too is considered WP:HOUNDING and is sanctionable if it becomes a habit. Curbon7 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, this isn't meant to be a warning or a threat or anything like that, just a nudge to notify you of a thing you may not have been aware of but that we take very seriously. Curbon7 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per our article on it, the NYAM is a "health policy and advocacy organization", so it is not an academic fellowship for the purposes of WP:NPROF. Additionally, with only one full publication which has only a couple citations and no professional reviews, she does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. There does not appear to be significant coverage for the purposes of WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article, it is a major center for health education. We are talking about an organization that was established in 1847. On average, they induct about 20 fellows annually and applicants for fellowship are "subject to a rigorous review and approval process." Shoerack (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment she's in several New York Times articles about expanding junior kindergarten programs, but I'm at my limit for free articles. Not sure the fellowship alone is notable, but if we had more RS, we could be at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [34][35] Gifting two of the NYT articles I could find. Curbon7 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, those appear trivial coverage. Delete is my !vote. I'm not swayed that the NYAM is a notable appointment, it appears to advise the city on public health matters or makes them directly. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 30 January 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 and salt. Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikko T.

Nikko T. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Singer that is one of the 33 that are shorlisted for representing Moldova in the Eurovision contest. I don't think it passes the notability criteria.

Note: This article has been created a few times since 2022, which led to page creation being restricted. This is a draft that was lost on the wrong namespace. I prefer not CSDing in order to reach some consensus instead of the back and forth. -- Luk talk 12:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • He actually passes 3 notability criteterias
1) performance in a television show (Eurovision) [36]
2) has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio (Hit FM (Russia), Europa Plus)
3) there's also an article with him published by ecopresa.md a pretty big in Moldova news website and radio ([37]) Jo Buffay (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Jo Buffay:, to be precise they did not participate in the Eurovision, but is one of the 20 or so that are considered a the Moldovan entry in the competition. All 3 would still fall short of the notability criteria. -- Luk talk 12:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't find any sources, other than streaming sites and youtube. The "news" pages that talk about him are full of clickbait and look to be personal websites. Simply being played on the radio isn't notable, we need to show that it's been charting, won an award or talked about in reliable media. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no signs of notability besides appearing in Eurovision. All the sources are either primary or rags. Since the page is already salted, leave it that way. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup organisers

FIFA World Cup organisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary list article, as the heads of organising committees are not important information that requires this separate article. Also, the heads of state of the host countries and the FIFA Presidents at the time are completely irrelevant WP:TRIVIA. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Lists. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trivial information that does not pass WP:NLIST. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Organizers are unsourced. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article is unsourced. Where did this definition of "World Cup organisers" come from in the first place? (If you look for coverage on "World Cup organisers", you get quite a different picture of who is meant by that term.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no actual notability, no sourcing, looks like WP:TRIVIA and possibly not even the kind of accurate one. Angelo (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blanka Jamnišek

Blanka Jamnišek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Outside of a single incident involving her being stuck in an elevator, which did receive at least a single in-depth coverage, there is no other in-depth coverage about her. Fails WP:GNG, and her government work does not meet any of the SNGs. Onel5969 TT me 12:13, 30 January 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 - consensus is that the subject doesn't pass notability requirements for a standalone article. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Barnes (footballer)

Richard Barnes (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. No secondary sources included in article (nor could be found on google). Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. - GA Melbourne (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United Kingdom. - GA Melbourne (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Wales. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge/Redirect to List of Wrexham A.F.C. players when that list is created; similar lists already exist for most clubs currently or recently in the English Football League. Peter James (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - there is really no proof of notability anywhere around. Angelo (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find any detailed coverage. This BNA search has a few match report mentions in the Abergele & Pensarn Visitor and Vale Advertiser but not enough depth to pass GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K-Hill

AfDs for this article:
K-Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC/the GNG. My WP:BEFORE search found no significant coverage of this individual in independent reliable sources, and there are no indications that better sources might be out there. (I was about to PROD this, but then I noticed the 2004 VfD—quite a blast from the past!) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing found for this person, K.Hill is a manganese project in Botswana. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Some potential sources have been identified in the discussion, so let's see if the article is improved using them, and if not it can be nominated again. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nuisance fee

Nuisance fee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article provides "a definition" with a supporting link to a vaporware encyclopedia called "Justipedia." The definition itself can be found on websites including Cornell Law and NOLO nevertheless Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from talk page, "Adding a source, entry from the site "Justipedia". I couldn't find any information about whether it's considered reliable by, for instance, WP Law, but seems better than no source. — Mainly 16:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)" Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be kept, there are more sources related to it online ([38], [39], [40], [41]). I haven't reviewed most of these sources, but search results have plenty related to this. The article however needs serious cleanup, and I'd be willing to help with that after the AFD if it's kept. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was categorized as law related so I viewed it from that narrow perspective which may not be correct. Consistent to that Item 1 is a copy of a NOLO definition. Item 2 relates to a different topic (food surcharges). Item 3 relates to a different topic namely Credit Card surcharges. Item 4 relates to convenience fees in rentals etc. If the article is improved I will close the AFD. Perhaps the way to do that might be to expand the topic beyond a legal definition as to cover some of the links you have found. Best Regards and thanks Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 14:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article is fixable, it shouldn't be in AfD. It should be fixed or tagged for cleanup. BruceThomson (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a "legal definition" the article is a "definition." The four sources provided would blend food surcharges, credit card fees, and convenience fees; which would not be correct.
    I found a convenience fee as a definition on another site. There are actually websites saying that "convenience fees are not credit card surcharges."
    Blending distinct terms into an article and connecting them together would be original research.
    Back to the reason for AFD - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:33, 30 January 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. Draftifying is unnecessary as a draft already exists. Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duran Ferree

Duran Ferree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duran Ferree

This one-sentence stub on an association football player has only one source, which is a database entry. As such, it does not even attempt to satisfy general notability, because it does not indicate what reliable sources have written, except that he exists.

Also, this surviving sentence was copy-pasted from Draft: Duran Ferree; two other sentences may have also been copied from there before being redacted here. Is this double plagiarism? If this stub is kept, a history merge with the draft will be needed, but it will not be needed if this stub is deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found [42], [43], [44], and [45] among other sources. Young player with ongoing fully pro career in American second tier. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 22:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify A case of WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. While the San Diego Tribune source is good, he fails WP:GNG due to lack of sustained coverage as three of the above sources are from 13-14 September 2022 (i.e. a brief burst of news) and the fourth one is a press release from his team (see [46]) and thus a primary source. Alvaldi (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify per Alvaldi. Angelo (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as has been noted, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but doesn't meet WP:GNG right now.Onel5969 TT me 14:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Agun. Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Agun

List of songs recorded by Agun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV Fork from Agun, the list is included in that article. There was no consensus to create this fork. This list is redundant. It happens also to fail WP:NLIST. While several of the movies have their own article the tracks/songs do not, and this list is unsourced except by inference from those which have their own articles. Redirect to Agun. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Bangladesh. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Unlike many of the people nominated, Agun is a relatively minor celebrity. As Wikipedia doesn't benefit by listing every musician's complete work, and I was not able to find sources discussing his work as a set, it fails WP:DIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. I think it would be fair to trim all non-notable movies from his list, as well. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Fails WP:NLIST, but should not be outright deleted. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Agun as the Discography section already have the same. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list in the Agun article. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muggs Fogarty

Muggs Fogarty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despie lots of citations this seems to be a clear failure to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure - on the one hand, quite long articles exist about the subject, for example 1. On the other, I've not yet seen anything that isn't local in scope and it looks like there might be an issue of independence from the subject in many of the available sources. Interested to see what others find. JMWt (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Poetry, and Rhode Island. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the subject's works have gotten any significant coverage. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 22:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 30 January 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 America's Next Top Model (season 12). Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Ammerman

AfDs for this article:
Celia Ammerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Kentucky. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Meets WP:GNG based upon significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, including such sources as Los Angeles Times New York Post, Hartford Courant, Vogue, Lexington Herald-Leader, and several others. These sources cover both her time on the show and her modeling career afterwards, as well as her pre-show early life and other details. — Hunter Kahn 05:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject is a living person who appeared on a tv show almost 14 years ago. It's illuminating to look at the dates of each of these sources, and those seen during a reasonable BEFORE. Virtually all the sources applied to the page constitute routine tv news or modeling news from 2009. While it's certainly true the subject was alive before and after her twelve-episode modeling career, it's also true that every one of the sources presented and found (including those seen more recently in a gsearch) refer to this reality show window in 2009, and the various model work surrounding these dates. There is no evidence presented or found that this subject might be considered notable before this season, or afterwards. I don't see any evidence of notable work outside of that season window. This is a BLP, and the page falls far short of the direct detailing, significant coverage, and independent non-routine reliable sources we need to support such a biography. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be okay with a redirect or merge to America's Next Top Model (season 12). Whatever coverage has accrued is about detailing that subject, not this one. I'd urge editors asserting keep to provide examples of coverage which does not mention the tv show. BusterD (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested is ok. Other than the Lexington newspaper article, they simply talk about her in relation to the show, nothing about her specifically. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corpora in Translation Studies

Corpora in Translation Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is written like a personal essay, has no inline citations and is an orphan. Furthermore, the article does not contribute anything to existing articles on Machine translation and its related articles Statistical machine translation, Example-based machine translation among others. A merge or redirect would not be useful. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or seriously overhaul for tone issues - Kazamzam (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, since I already voted: A serious overhaul is not an option in my view, because the topic Corpora in Translation Studies does not merit a separate article. By the way, this article has nothing to do with Translation Studies. Maybe Corpora in Translation would be a better title but we already have Text corpus and the above mentioned articles on Machine Translation and Statistical machine translation. I would vote for a merge into Text corpus but I find nothing in the article that adds to the already existing pages.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd suggest a merge as an WP:ATD, but I agree with nominator that no article (or redirect) should exist at the current title. No information of value appears to be present that could be merged into other articles about corpus linguistics, text corpora, or machine translation; reads like a student essay. Suriname0 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hutchcroft

Kim Hutchcroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This man may be an active musician, but that does not make him a notable musician. An internet search reveals that there are very few third-party sources that are independent of the subject. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. By far the greatest number of mentions of Hutchcroft are in passing, listing him in the credits of various albums, or as a member of Seawind. But there is one book released in 2010 by Wipf and Stock Publishers which briefly describes Hutchcroft's career in two paragraphs spanning pages 72–73: Lifestyle Worship: The Worship God Intended Then and Now, ISBN 9781608995837. The author says "my friend Kim Hutchcroft...", so it's not exactly an uninvolved third party, but it's the best thing I found. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He may not be as notable musician as others from Seawind, but I believe his participation in Michael Jackson's Thriller, Off The Wall and Bad albums together with Larry Williams (jazz musician), Gary Grant and Jerry Hey should be considered when evaluating his notability.
    Hutchcroft had an impact on the 1970s-1990s music industry with Seawind Horns and genres that arose and formed in that era, having done an extensive work as a session musician for various notable Jazz, Funk, Pop artists such as George Benson, B.B. King, Brothers Johnson among many others.
    His credits are on AllMusic - https://www.allmusic.com/artist/kim-hutchcroft-mn0000100295
    @Binksternet, he is also mentioned in the book "In the studio with Michael Jackson" by Bruce Swedien, Michael Jackson, which isn't available online. But that unfortunately isn't uninvolved third party. YitzhakNat (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a supporting figure on notable music projects does not confer notability in Wikipedia terms. Only producers, writers and top-billed artists are blessed with notability when connected to notable musical projects. Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iowa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not enough in-depth secondary source coverage. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 30 January 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! 08:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ursala Hudson

Ursala Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Truthfully, this article is right on the border of notability. The more independent the source is from Hudson, the less she's mentioned; this is true of both the sources in the article and the ones I found on Google. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree that this is right on the border, I am informed by the sources below, which include passing mentions and interviews, but still I think there is just enough to keep.
  1. https://www.juneauempire.com/news/sisters-continue-weaving-teaching-after-mothers-death/
  2. https://www.nativeartsandcultures.org/ursala-hudson
  3. https://www.vogue.com/article/santa-fe-indian-market-designers-artists-preview
  4. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest/alaska-native-weaving-project-honors-survivors-of-violence/
  5. https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2022/09/19/native-alaska-culture-heritage CT55555(talk) 14:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ursula Hudson is very well established, and the Wikipedia bio article is thoroughly cited. It's just a short article, but you have to start somewhere. Yuchitown (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of presented sources. Being "established" does not necessarily imply notability, and citations in the article are insufficient if none are reliable, in-depth, or independent.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, with the sources as given above, she's probably just past the bar for notability. the Vogue and Seattle Times ones seem the best. I'd perhaps include more focus on her advocacy for survivors of violence in the article, to help with gender bias here on Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She meets GNG based on the article sourcing and those put forward above, as well as others I'm finding in a WP:BEFORE. When analyzing her accomplishments as a emerging Native artist, I am impressed by the show at the Renwick which is part of the Smithsonian, and work (best in show) in the Washington State History Museum[47][48]; her show at the Center for Contemporary Art in Santa Fe (there needs to be an article on this institution), her residency at IAIA; her inclusion in the Santa Fe Indian Market which is highly competitive, very selective and keenly curated; her career support from the Native Arts and Cultures Foundation, and an award from the First Peoples Fund[49]. The Heard Museum has an artist file on her, and her work is included in the book Wearing the Wealth of the Land: Chilkat Robes and their Connection to Place (Princeton University Press, pgs. 185, 187)[50]. All of these establish significant validation of her notability within the realm of Native American arts. Her work can't really be measured by the New York-Paris-London-Dusseldorf art-marketplace world, while that may be the dominant commercial marketplace for art, it is not particularly inclusive of Native artists at all. She is a rising star and I am sure we will be hearing alot more about her in years to come. The article should be kept. Netherzone (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can confirm that IAIA residency and Santa Fe Indian Market are strong indicators of notability Elinruby (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CT55555. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Article is thoroughly cited and she passes the minimum for GNG with the article as it is but with the additional sources provided by CT55555 there is no doubt the notability of the subject. WP:N --ARoseWolf 14:48, 31 January 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 Wind Tre. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very Mobile

Very Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally created as a redirect by a user who is now blocked as an LTA (thus not notifying of this discussion). Subsequently it has been turned into an article and reverted into a redirect multiple times, to the extent that I can't really follow the history and I'm not certain if it's actually notable Taking Out The Trash (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very Mobile is one of the best-known Mobile Virtual Network Operators in Italy. Just like ho-mobile and Kena Mobile it has a direct relationship with a Mobile Network Operator (in the case of Very Mobile Wind Tre, in the case of ho-mobile Vodafone Italia, and in the case of Kena Mobile TIM). This makes them both much better known than other smaller MVNOs.62.18.48.161 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like there should be an appropriate redirect target here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm ok with the merge as proposed, I don't see much for the company than what's given. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wind Tre (about a single sentence worth merging). HighKing++ 17:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzhou Lakeside International School

Fuzhou Lakeside International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No significant coverage in English or Chinese. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Qiu, Ling 邱陵, ed. (2012-09-17). "西湖国际学校正式开学　首批外籍新生多数是华裔" [Fuzhou Lakeside International School officially opened, most of the first batch of foreign freshmen are Chinese] (pages 1, 2, and 3). Fuzhou Evening News  [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original (pages 1, 2, and 3) on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Fuzhou West Lake International School is a contracted project in the Gulou District of this year's Shanghai Fair, and it is currently the only international school in the main urban area of Fuzhou. After enrollment, West Lake International School currently has about 60 students, distributed in 8 grades from Kindergarten to Senior One. The reporter noticed that although the school recruits foreign children, most of the students are Chinese."

    2. Que, Que Wenlong 阙文龙; Xiao, Chundao 肖春道; Zhang, Yong 张勇 (2012-05-08). "西湖国际学校9月1日开学" [Fuzhou Lakeside International School will start school on September 1]. Strait Metropolitan Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "According to reports, the school will open kindergartens, primary schools, and middle schools, adopt American-style education, introduce American teachers, and implement bilingual teaching, mainly in English. Students can choose Chinese, Japanese, Korean, German, Italian, Spanish and other languages. It is understood that Fuzhou West Lake International School covers an area of 11 acres, with an investment of 30 million US dollars. At present, the main part has been completed, and indoor and outdoor decoration is underway."

    3. Qiu, Ling 邱陵 (2020-12-22). "朴志炫：曾在福州开餐厅的英语教师，盛赞福州有味道" [Park Ji-hyun: An English teacher who once opened a restaurant in Fuzhou, praised Fuzhou for its taste]. Fuzhou Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Fuzhou West Lake International School, where Pu Zhixuan works, was founded in 2012. It is the only international school in Fuzhou approved by the Fujian Provincial Department of Education. The school currently offers kindergarten, primary school, middle and high school grades, creating an all-English teaching environment for students, and attaching importance to teaching students' academic and social research and use of English."

    4. "Fuzhou Lakeside International School". China Daily. 2018-08-16. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30.

      The article notes: "Fuzhou Lakeside International School (FLIS) was founded in 2012 to offer international education program from preschool to grade 12. The school is authorized to accept foreign students and students from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan."

    5. "美国福建同乡会与福州合作办学服务在榕外籍人士" [American Fujian Association and Fuzhou Cooperate in Running Schools to Serve Foreigners in Fuzhou] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2012-05-22. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "It is understood that Fuzhou West Lake International School will officially open in September this year, and will provide a good educational service platform for children of foreign nationals working in Fuzhou and compatriots from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan."

    6. Wu, Zechun 吴泽春, ed. (2018-06-20). "马塞洛邀福州西湖国际学校足球少年前往西班牙特训" [Marcelo invites Fuzhou West Lake International School football teenagers to Spain for special training] (in Chinese). NetEase. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "In September 2017, Fuzhou West Lake International School established a youth football team. In the next three months, the football team participated in the 2017-2018 Fuzhou Youth Football League [Primary School Under 10] group stage, 11 matches, and achieved a record of victory!"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fuzhou Lakeside International School (simplified Chinese: 福州西湖国际学校; traditional Chinese: 福州西湖國際學校) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisted to allow discussion of presented sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. There is enough to meet WP:GNG. Taung Tan (talk) 10:38, 30 January 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 Turkey–Venezuela relations. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Caracas

Embassy of Turkey, Caracas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Venezuela. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Given the embassy's long history, bibliographical sources could help to provide independent coverage. However, this is not the case with the current version. I've added a History section hoping to improve the article a little. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn’t meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Serratra (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If anyone is interested in working on a Draft version, contact me. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumbul Touqeer Khan

AfDs for this article:
Sumbul Touqeer Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely UPE, and fails WP:NACTOR, references are mainly interviews with Khan, with little or no editorial, one is a 404 error. Nothing substantial here. WP:ADMASQ. The prior article was deleted at AfD. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draftify seems ok, there looks like a much bigger article could be built, but it's not quite there yet. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong delete the subject was not notable one year ago, and they are not notable now. Argument supporting draftify - "will be notable in future" is a WP:CRYSTAL argument. UPE tag at the article is also off putting. If the subject becomes notable in future, a genuine wikipedian might create the article, or there is the paid editor. We shouldn't tolerate/entertain UPEs. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:27, 31 January 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) 06:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Indian Foundation

Global Indian Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the notability requirement; NCORP. RPSkokie (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athul Unnikrishnan

Athul Unnikrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taking this to AFD since the creator do not want to incubate this in draftspace. A young player who has only made one appearance in Indian Super League by coming as a substitute. East Bengal played 15 games during the season and his first appearance was during the 15th match where he played for 8 minutes. There is no significant coverage for the player to meet WP:GNG and I can't find any coverage other than his stats from Soccerway and Transfermarket. Thesixserra (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete the article. Discussions regarding merging and other cleanup functions can, of course, continue on the article's discussion page. Joyous! | Talk 02:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Markstrat

Markstrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A substantially promotional page, tagged as such since 2017, which has never had any references to independent sources, and for which significant coverage in independent sources has not been found on searching. No evidence of notability. JBW (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found these [51], [52], [53] Timur9008 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree that this page is written particularly promotionally. It reads as if the person who wrote it has a positive view of the subject but not overtly so. I was able to find a small yet reasonable amount of WP:SIGCOV[54][55][56] to list a few. Also, referencing the sources found by Timur9008, the second source tells us that the game had 250 million players, which if true really gives it a good chance at passing WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 Talk 18:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I do see that someone edited the page since this discussion was posted, removing much promotional content. It certainly appeared more promotional before. WP:HEY GoldMiner24 Talk 18:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I find is the game's website, then youtube videos about how to play it. No sources, not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge the sources from Timur9008 are probably enough, along with the journal article[57] from GoldMiner24. The article will need to be re-written from these sources, and might fit better in the biographies of the academics who made it. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janak Wanigatunge

Janak Wanigatunge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note notable, no references in the article about him or is searches. Appears to have been made by a paid contributor. Hardyplants (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is an Air vice-marshal an automatically notable position? WP:SOLDIER considered that an individual who "held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents", though this now reverts to WP:BIO. There are plenty of reliable sources confirming his rank as Air vice-marshall but not a lot of 'significant coverage', mainly just mentions in passing. BTW User:DilJco is not a paid contributor, he almost solely created articles about alumni of Nalanda College, Colombo, many of them non-notable. Presumably he was a student/former student of the school. Dan arndt (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: It indeed used to be the case that flag, general and air officers and their equivalents were considered to be automatically notable. Sadly, however, this has now been deprecated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 30 January 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! 06:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Uniyal

AfDs for this article:
Kiran Uniyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE, references are not reliable or are not significant enough. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 01:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per emerging consensus that she is notable, as people stated in the AFD that closed just a few days ago. CT55555(talk) 13:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That AFD was closed because the nominator was a sock. The keep !vote by the Manpreet can be discounted as they are now locked for abusing multiple accounts, which is related to this article on the Simple English Wikipedia. There are sources for the subject's world records, but I do not see any notability beyond just world records. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 01:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. This wasn't a drive-by vote, I made improvements to the article recently. That said, I am not confident in my source assessment, and yet I've seen enough to think is is notable. I'm open minded. It does still seem like she passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC, but tell me if you disagree with both of those and I will reconsider. CT55555(talk) 14:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - per WP:BASIC and a combination of sources with secondary context and commentary, e.g. Want to make self-defence accessible to women: Guinness record holder Kiran to TNM (The News Minute, 9 Mar 2019), At 45, Kiran Uniyal is teaching people how to defend themselves with some killer moves (The New Indian Express, 6 Apr 2019), In pictures: 11 women who were the 'firsts' in their field in 2021 (Business Standard, 7 Mar 2021). The article needs clean up, but these sources can also help with expansion of the article with biographical and career information. Beccaynr (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 02:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhim Singh Rana Jat

Bhim Singh Rana Jat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced. WP:BEFORE search turns less than what's in the article. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per this, this, this, this, this, this, and other Google book searches. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Rana Bhim Singh, as that's his WP:COMMONNAME. He was an important ruler of Gohad State who also captured the famous Gwalior Fort in 1754. He is covered in plenty of scholarly sources: just search terms like Rana Bhim Singh, Rana of Gohad, etc. Here are some scholarly sources which can be used to improve and expand the article:
  • pp. 110–111, 139 of this book describe Bhim Singh's relation with the Bharatpur State rulers and their joint military expeditions
  • pp. 51–52, 148 of this book gives a detailed account of capturing of Gwalior fort by Rana and also of its subsequent siege by the Marathas
  • p. 87–88 this book describes the capture of Gwalior fort by Rana and the subsequent siege of Marathas;
  • pp. 44–45 of this book describes his capture of the fort and also his death in a battle
  • pp. 93–94 of this book discusses the mutual help provided by Bhim Singh and Bharatpur rulers and the attack of Marathas on the Rana.
So the article needs improvement, not deletion. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Potential superpower#European Union. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European Union as an emerging superpower

European Union as an emerging superpower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a future prediction and reads like a speculative essay. I therefore argue it fails WP:CRYSTAL point number 3. EvilxFish (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment there is perhaps some salvageable material from this article but it would be better integrated into existing articles on the EU. EvilxFish (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Potential_superpower#European_Union. This page was copied and pasted from this main article in 2015 but an appropriate split was not completed. As a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE in its entirety, there is no unique content to preserve, though the redirect it had been since 2008 should be maintained. Would have NACed this, seems no further discussion necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 17 January 2023, 02:21 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeing if there is any support for this redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This has the potential to come to fruition and we shouldn’t be so hasty to assume it won’t and isn’t worthy of an article. Serratra (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not think the WP Crystal applies here. The article is about an idea, that EU can become, or has become already, a superpower. It is not about a fact, it is a perception. This perception has been analysed and its potential has been explored by various authors. (some examples include [58], [59],[60],[61]). So it is a Keep from me, but maybe we could change the name to "EU as a superpower" Cinadon36 08:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The content will be kept regardless, it's all at Potential_superpower#European_Union, and it's imprudent to keep a separate duplicate page. I should have just done a NAC with BLAR and no information would be lost while saving some breath.... Reywas92Talk 17:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Reywas. This is just a straight up copy of what's already in (still in) the other article plus an essay-like title, and it's unclear what reason there is for spinning it out. Arguing that it's notable misses the point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Thode

Tristan Thode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Independent review doesn’t give any indication that the article subject has enough WP:SIGCOV to satisfy GNG, NATHLETE, or NPERSON. Serratra (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Best sources I could find are [62] and [63]. Not close to meeting WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 03:49, 30 January 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! 06:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William J. van Ooij

William J. van Ooij (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a quick fail of WP:PROF. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn’t look like an NPROF pass to me. Mccapra (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - note to those who are checking for sources on van ooij - make sure to look for variations of his name. 'van ooij' and 'vanooij' and 'ooij' have all been used. Also, sometimes he went by 'Wim' other times 'William'.

Regarding the WP:NPROF checklist, not sure how anyone who has done even a cursory check can say that van ooij fails the criteria. here is a detailed analysis:

1 The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
van Ooij wrote "the book" on anti-corrosion surface treatments. Google scholar shows that his top 10 publications are each cited more than 300-400 times [64]. Is there anyone else in the corrosion / surface treatment field with bigger impact?
2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
the Melvin Mooney Distinguished Technology Award award, which van ooij received, is a highly prestigious academic award/honor at national/international level. His article is part of a series of Mooney winners.
3 The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
NA
4 The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
see criterion #1. van ooij's work is highly cited in the field of corrosion. He also was founding editor of the journal of adhesion science and technology, and founder of International Congress on Adhesion Science and Technology. I will add this info with cite to the article.
5 The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
NA
6 The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
NA
7 The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
van Ooij co-founded Ecosil, a company that provides anti-corrosion surface treatments.
8 The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
van ooij was founding editor of the journal of adhesion science and technology.

Bottom line: van ooij easily meets 5 of the 8 criteria. Surely that is sufficient?! AresLiam (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per PROF-C1, going through the list at scholar, his h-index is above 50 and there are several works with hundreds of citations. The Melvin Mooney Distinguished Technology Award may also met C2, but I am unsure here. --Mvqr (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • On reflection this could have been closed as no consensus leaning keep, but giving those who opined 'delete' earlier a chance to respond. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability. This article doesn’t meey WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, let alone NPERSON. Serratra (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevant guideline is WP:NPROF, which is separate. --Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Mvqr, it's just a sock who trolls AfDs with no actual interest in doing the work. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AresLiam's WP:NPROF analysis. Jfire (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AresLiam's analysis where the subject person clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    confused. are you claiming that to pass WP:NACADEMIC one must meet more than 5 of the 8 criteria? My conclusion, based on analysis WP:NACADEMIC, was keep. AresLiam (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As per your analysis - 1) He is co-author of the books and 4) not the fact. Your point 6 fails. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    take a closer look at criterion #1: goto google scholar, then click on van ooij's most cited publication. then click 'cited by'. On the first page of results citing van ooij, I do not find a single self citation. These are all other researchers citing his work. repeat this for his 2nd most cited work, same story. 3rd most cited work, same story. This is a person who is clearly highly regarded / notable in his field and not dependent on self citation. This exercise also speaks to criterion #4. Clearly, van ooij's impact is central to the field of study. AresLiam (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Twinkle1990 please don't vote twice, you already voted above in the first vote at 12:59, 22 January 2023. --Mvqr (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops sorry. I didn't notice that I have voted already. Kindly redact the duplicate. Twinkle1990 (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • just added two more cites to the article. van ooij was cited in the US EPA presidential green chemistry awards + ohio board of regents tech transfer report for 2006. It seems absurd to me that a person can succeed at creating a technology and a successful company that eliminates carcinogens from many workplaces, can get recognized by the EPA, and then is judged to not pass wikipedia's notability criterion. To paraphrase the Monty Python sketch: “An argument should be a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition... It should not be merely the | automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." AresLiam (talk) 03:55, 31 January 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 Subtitles#Subtitle formats. Any content worth merging to the redirect target is available from the article's history. Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SubStation Alpha

SubStation Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subtitle file format. The article does not establish notability (WP:GNG), and the contents are a mix of WP:NOTHOWTO and a product guide, which we are WP:NOT. The format is already appropriately covered at Subtitles#Subtitle_formats. Sandstein 20:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not establish sufficient notability. The NASA paper - an "internship final report" - does not discuss the SSA file format at all, but only mentions it in passing in a comparison of subtitling software. It is also not published in a journal with editorial oversight, making it not a reliable source. The second reference - the chapter "Subtitles and Closed Captions" in the book "Linux Sound Programming" - dedicates two pages to the topic, of which one page are a screenshot and a code example. If we accept the second reference as substantial coverage, this still leaves us without the multiple sources required by GNG. Sandstein 15:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not clear why there are the tables in this article - they seem to cover the general area of subtitling and if so don't belong here. I do find a minor thesis that is primarily about this software, and others that describe using it in projects: here and here and there are others. Lamona (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already addressed the "Linux Sound Programming" coverage above, and a bachelor's thesis is not an appropriate source because it will not have been professionally reviewed. Sandstein 22:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sandstein I must admit to being unsure. This may be a defunct file format, as many of the references I see are from a decade or more ago. What really puzzles me is that this file format never seems to have been formally standardized, yet it was recognized by video software. I find many articles referencing it (but just saying they use it) particularly in articles about translation, accessibility, and large-scale captioning analysis. I would feel better about deleting this if there was some reference point that could be added to SSA in the chart in Subtitles. My weak keep may be leaning now to delete. I'll check back. Lamona (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There exists a specification for SSA. Though like with its successor, ASS (SSA 4v+) I would assume in practice the spec is whatever VSFilter does since most subtitles were authored to that.
I would be for reworking the article to be the other way around, focusing on ASS instead of SSA. SSA has been defunct for many years, while ASS is the de facto standard for fansubbing and specifically anime fansubbing with active development still happening. 141.70.45.1 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Lamona (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would argue that the 'delete' arguments are far stronger here, but unfortunately a lack of participation has hampered support for that viewpoint. One final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:57, 30 January 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! | Talk 02:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker Mountain

Crocker Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A disambiguation page should have more than one match. Crocker Mountain (Maine) should be moved here, and a hatnote should be added to link to the two Mount Crockers. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The exact dab term appears to also be used for the mountain in Malaysia (example), while the other dab entries are similar enough to require disambiguation anyway. The mountain in Maine appears to be pretty obscure, so I'm not going to presume it's a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't used for the Malaysian mountain (at least not in the linked article, where the exact phrasing is "the Crocker mountain"). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get that, sorry. Are you suggesting that the occurrence of a phrase with a definite article should disqualify it from inclusion in the dab page? – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I look at it more closely, it's obviously not referring to an individual mountain: "the Crocker mountain is considered to be the highest mountain range in Sabah". Clarityfiend (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Removed hatnote per WP:NAMB. Nobody is going to type "Crocker Mountain (Maine)" for a mountain range halfway around the world. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, obviously helpful disambiguation, currently covering 3 similarly named individual mountains and 2 very relevant see also items. Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn thanks to WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) lettherebedarklight晚安 03:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Mujica (writer)

Barbara Mujica (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

sources in article are two pieces from the same author and magazine. fails general notability guideline. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:AUTHOR, doesn't pass any of it's criteria. Keep per Beccaynr's argument. MaterialWorks (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR - Substantial content was removed by another editor before this nom [67] and an online search for reviews finds 4 on Kirkus Reviews [68], 2 from Publishers Weekly [69] [70] (for Frida and Sister Teresa), and Al Día [71] (for Miss Del Rio), a scholarly review via JSTOR [72] (for Women Writers of Early Modern Spain: Sophia's Daughters), and she is Emeritus Faculty at Georgetown University [73]. I have not yet searched the WP Library, but notability already appears supported and the article can be developed. Beccaynr (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Library sources
    • The first three results at the WP library are reviews of Women Warriors in Early Modern Spain, which "gathers fourteen essays to honor Dr. Bárbara Mujica, Emeritus Professor of Spanish at Georgetown University, whose work has centered on early modern Spanish theater and early modern women." LEWIS, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN. Early Modern Women: An Interdisciplinary Journal , Spring2021, Vol. 15 Issue 2, p210-213, 4p; DOI: 10.1353/emw.2021.0014; Coolidge, Grace E. Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies. Sep2021, Vol. 22 Issue 3, p441-443. 3p. DOI: 10.1080/14636204.2021.1960756; Fernández, Esther. Social History. May2021, Vol. 46 Issue 2, p221-222. 2p. DOI: 10.1080/03071022.2021.1896237. Another review slightly further down in the search results is Women Warriors in Early Modern Spain: A Tribute to Bárbara Mujica ed. by Susan L. Fischer and Frederick A. de Armas (review). Gyulamiryan, Tatevik. Hispania, Sep2020, Vol. 103 Issue 3
    • There is also "Reviewing Barbara Mujica. By: Bencastro, Mario, Americas, 03790940, Mar/Apr93, Vol. 45, Issue 2, which includes "Dr. Barbara Mujica, novelist, short story writer and professor of Spanish at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., has been a collaborating editor for Americas Magazine since 1990. In addition to reviewing books on a regular basis, this versatile writer has contributed articles on modern art and theater as well as profiles on noted literary figures. Dr. Mujica's first book of short stories, Far From My Mother's Home, is currently at press..."
    • Frida (Book Review). By: Bader, Eleanor J., Library Journal, 03630277, 11/15/2000, Vol. 125, Issue 19
    • Frida (Book). Holmer, Joan Ozark. Americas. Jan/Feb2002, Vol. 54 Issue 1, p63. 1p.
    • Frida (Book Review) White, Emily. New York Times Book Review. 01/28/2001, p18. (full text not available on EBSCO)
    • Egan, Keith J. America. 11/17/2008, Vol. 199 Issue 16, p26-27. 2p. 1 ("reviews the book "Sister Teresa: The Woman Who Became Saint Teresa of Avila," by Barbara Mujica.")
    • Teresa de Ávila. By: Cunningham, Lawrence S., Commonweal, 00103330, 9/10/2010, Vol. 137, Issue 15
    • Sister Teresa: The Woman Who Became Saint Teresa of Avila. By: Benson, Mary Margaret, Library Journal, 03630277, 12/1/2006, Vol. 131, Issue 20
    • Sister Teresa: The Woman Who Became Saint Teresa of Avila. Flanagan, Margaret. Booklist. 1/1/2007 - 1/15/2007, Vol. 103 Issue 9/10, p56.
    • Miss del Río: A Novel of Dolores del Río, the First Major Latina Star in Hollywood. By: Jimenez, Migdalia, Library Journal, 03630277, Sep2022, Vol. 147, Issue 9
    • Reviewed Work: Aquí Ahora (Book). by Bárbara Mujica; Bradley Class, The Modern Language Journal, 65(2) 1981 (via JSTOR)
    • Reviewed Work: Pasaporte (Book). by Barbara Mujica, Richard Woehr, Fausto Vergara; Víctor Arizpe The Modern Language Journal 69 (1) 1985.
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 Andy McCoy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Gallery (band)

Shooting Gallery (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAND, none of their songs have made it to a chart, nor have they signed to a record label. No other sources found online. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 00:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Haven't been able to find any neutral reliable sources to confirm notability. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 02:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Andy McCoy as one of his many short-lived side projects. Since this band has some valid history due to opening for Kiss, their name is a possible search term but there is really nothing else notable about their stunted career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:24, 30 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_January_30&oldid=1138044613"