Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 29	July 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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!} 23:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Jaquinta

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

Jacquinta was a local level businessman. We have an obirtuary from the Miami Herald, but that is not enough on its own. I found one from the Sun-Senitnel, another local paper, that was in tone almost certainly family submitted. The other source we have here is from a massive database of people who went through Ellis Island, not at all a source that adds towards notability. I do not think our information on this local level businessperson is enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are trivial mentions at best, with WP forks at the worst. I could not find any sources by browsing the above databases. Fails WP:NBIO CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miklós Mitrovits

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Probably autobiographical (there's even one sentence left in the first person). – Ploni (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Hungary. Ploni (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this autobio that does not pass NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2022 (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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 13:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Foxcroft

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

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessman and an article about his company, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for businesspeople or companies. They're basically lashed together into a self-fulfilling notability loop (i.e. Foxcroft's only real notability claim is that he's CEO of the company, while the company's only real notability claim is that Foxcroft is its CEO), but neither companies nor their CEOs get automatic inclusion freebies just for existing, and instead must be shown to pass WP:GNG and/or WP:CORPDEPTH on their sourceability. But neither of these articles shows any such thing, and instead they're both referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all — and even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that wouldn't Google, the Burlington-Hamilton local media market is virtually the only place I'm finding any substantive coverage of him: as soon as I constrain the search results to knock out anything from the Hamilton Spectator and the Burlington Post, I'm reduced to glancing namechecks of Foxcroft's existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things rather than any substantive coverage that would pass CORPDEPTH's requirement for more than just local sourcing.
And for added bonus, the company's article has been flagged as "written like an advertisement" for almost a full decade without ever being toned down all that much — and while Foxcroft's only been tagged for sourcing problems for about a year, that was mainly a case of the page flying under the radar, because its sourcing has been bad every bit as long as the company's sourcing has. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Article has zero third-party sources, only two primary sources (one of which doesn't even seem to mention Ron Foxcroft in any capacity). The article's got a lot of claims to all these awards, but nothing backing them up. - Aoidh (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noynx

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

Seems to fail WP:NMUSICIAN. – Ploni (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. Ploni (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. The article doesn't even make a claim to meet anything in WP:MUSICBIO, and the sourcing in the article is very weak, most are not even reliable sources in any way. I know this is not a reason for deletion but if the article is kept it needs a serious rewrite, the article's wording is awkward at best and confusing at times. Maybe it's just me I have no idea what the sentence "First apparition in a chronic on France 3 TV (2011)" is supposed to be saying? The wording in the article almost makes it seem like it was machine translated from another language. - Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Abdulai Koya

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, United Kingdom, England, and Canada. Ploni (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The only source that even mentions her name in any context is her own personal website. The rest may or may not verify that other things or people exist, but not that she has any connection to them. Not only is there none of the significant coverage required, I can find no coverage whatsoever, not even trivial mentions. This may just be WP:TOOSOON, but there's just no notability at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rommel

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

Fails to meet criteria for musicians and ensembles. – Ploni (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Spain. Ploni (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. I'm not going to say it outright fails to meet WP:GNG because there are a couple of interviews and such, but it's a very weak claim to general notability that's very much outshadowed by its failure to meet any part of WP:MUSICBIO, which is the more specific notability guideline. There's been some minor coverage but the notability's just not there. - Aoidh (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Fabiobengario (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamed Mešić

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

Fails WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, Law, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ploni (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I had to go through the Internet Archive to see what the CJH source said, and it looks like it was a staff bio for being part of a panel called The History of Genocide Initiative. It's not an independent source. The Profil.at piece absolutely is a reliable source, though it interviews both Muhamed Mešić and several other immigrants in Austria, specifically because they are immigrants, not because Muhamed Mešić himself is specifically the focus. However, I would say that would contribute to notability as it ticks off all the right boxes on WP:GNG if only technically. Then there's this. It goes into detail about Muhamed Mešić knowing 58 languages and talks a little about learning different languages and accents and then just kind of cuts off with no context? It's supposedly a series of profiles of people on the street, but the whole point of it seems to be that they're random people being interviewed. I looked at a few other profiles in the same series and there was a piece about a woman whose grandmother was killed by Nazis, and another about a person who loves to cook the perfect steak. In my opinion they don't show notability for the subject since they're not interviewing someone because they're notable in any way, the whole point seems to be that they're interviewing random, every day people in this area to see what makes them interesting. That Muhamed Mešić just happens to have been one of the people interviewed does not show notability. Outside of biographical profiles of places he's associated with, that's really it as far as coverage of this person goes, and that's not enough to meet either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. - Aoidh (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhannad Al Jumaili

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

Easily fails WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Saudi Arabia. Ploni (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, I can't find anything supporting notability for the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Batuli (actress)

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

No notable role in any significant film. – Ploni (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Ploni (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's some coverage in one page selling movies with her in it, and another that looks to be little more than a blog entry, but that's really it. The article fails WP:NACTOR because while the article claims she's been in 10 films, none of them appear to be notable films. I did a search for the movies listed and each one turns up a website from the producers of the film promoting said film, maybe a theatre promoting the film playing there, and then just a bunch of social media posts with the title tagged in it. The only exception to that is Get Out. I know that Get Out is also the name of a 2017 American film so I checked IMDB and TVGuide's full cast list for the American movie to see if maybe she was in that Get Out and not just a different film with the same name, but eventually I was able to confirm it's not the same film. It's hard to search for a movie called Get Out on Google and weed out results for the American film, and searching "Get Out Tanzanian" only reveals results related to COVID-19. However I feel confident in concluding that it's no different than the others in terms of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2022 (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!} 23:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemus Christopher

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions here and here about his achievements while in secondary school, but nothing to meet the guidelines. JTtheOG (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Weirdly I don't see a football/soccer-specific criteria at WP:ATHLETE, but I completely agree that the two passing mentions that JTtheOG listed above are absolutely trivial coverage and does not support notability in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That football/soccer-specific criteria is currently being discussed. But I'm not going to argue about this anymore because these players and coaches without that criteria can result to this anyway. Ivan Milenin (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability criteria. The Footballean (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone finds additional sources (a perusal of some news searches did not turn up anything relevant for me). There is some stuff like this, but it doesn't seem like WP:SIGCOV of Christopher specifically. jp×g 22:02, 4 July 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Yiyen

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

No evidence that subject meets WP:NMUSICIAN. Created by SPA. – Ploni (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Taiwan. Ploni (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Yu, Shuhan 俞姝含 (2017-06-05). "台灣女音樂家吳苡嫣開拓新領域" [Taiwanese female musician Amanda Wu opens up new fields]. World Journal (in Chinese). Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via PressReader.
  This article profiles the subject. The article notes: "舞台時，吳苡嫣曾說在地球上生活要找到生命的主題，聽心聲、做自己，聽心聲、做自己，34歲的她日前發行第三張個人專輯「地球旅程，第二輯：時間故事」，結合古典". From Google Translate: "On the stage, Wu Yiyan once said that living on earth should find the theme of life, listen to the voice, be yourself, listen to the voice, be yourself. The 34-year-old recently released her third solo album "Earth Journey, Series II: Time Story", combined with classical."
2. Zhao, Ruogen 趙若亘 (July 2017). "萬眾光芒集一身，時尚爵士創作才女。吳苡嫣，Amanda Wu" [All the rays of light come together, fashion jazz creative talent. Amanda Wu]. Sino Monthly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
  The article extensively profiles the subject.
3. Liu, Guanyou 劉冠佑 (2015-03-04). "「DJ音樂盒」推薦台灣優秀音樂人創作演出的作品" ["DJ Music Box" recommends works created and performed by outstanding Taiwanese musicians] (in Chinese). Radio Taiwan International. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Amanda Wu has shown her talents in different fields since she was a child. She has won the championship in piano/oboe/singing/electronic organ competitions. Continue to show amazing brilliant results. When he was admitted to the university, he was the only one who was admitted to the National Taipei University of the Arts with a high score as a major in oboe. At the same time, he was admitted to Fu Jen Catholic University with the first place in the recommended screening test."
4. Leah (2017-07-22). "An Interview With Taiwanese Classical Jazz Artist, Amanda Wu!". Allaccess.com. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
  The article provides 189 words of non-interview coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Born in Taiwan, Amanda started her music career at an impressively young age. As a child prodigy, she composed her first piece at just 7 years old. At ages 8, 9, and 12 she represented Taiwan internationally, performing her original compositions in Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand. By age 19, Amanda was the champion of the international piano competition organized by Montreal International Music Camp Canada. Amanda has also been a TED x Taipei speaker & performer."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Amanda Wu (traditional Chinese: 吳苡嫣; simplified Chinese: 吴苡嫣) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject meets WP:GNG alone based on the sources Cunard listed above. She meets WP:MUSICBIO Criteria #1 easily and arguably also #9 with the Montreal International Music Camp Canada mention above, which from what I've found online certainly seems to qualify as a "major music competition." - Aoidh (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion by Cunard that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juri (model)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Japan. Ploni (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a lot listed on this article as far as work done, though I have to note that all of them are unsourced. It is hard to find things online to verify any of those, as "Juri" is a name used for a lot of people and fictional characters, and even searching for "Juri model" turns up more about digital character models than this article's subject. Searching for "Juri Aikawa" turns up a lot of non-reliable Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, and social media posts, but nothing close to any sort of reliable source. The article does note that he is professionally known only as "Juri" though. I thought searching "Hugo Boss" and "Juri" would narrow down to this model, but apparently "Juri Shirt" is a type of shirt Hugo Boss sells. Searching other shows like "Emperio Armani" and "Juri" combined don't turn up anything either. If he was a part of these shows, it apparently wasn't important enough to mention him anywhere. I did the same type of searches with a few of the magazines and I just can't find anything that even substantiates that he's associated with these big names that are being mentoned in the article, let alone that there's significant coverage of it. Right now I have to say the article fails WP:GNG completely as there's nothing to speak of as far as reliable sources go. He might be able to meet WP:NMODEL if we can actually show that he modelled at these bigger, more notable events, but it's just not there and I can't find it. - Aoidh (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2022 (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. No penalty against future attempts to write an article in Draft space with better sourcing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Chand

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

Non-notable evangelist. Fails WP:GNG. See also Special:BlockList/User:Justhell. – Ploni (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Religion, Christianity, United Kingdom, and England. Ploni (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It's a pretty poorly-written article but it passes the notability sourcing requirement (narrowly). Notability outside those constraints seems tepid at best. Would appreciate AfD nominator reporting on search results. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not see much notable in the article, just a one-man ministry, something of a kind we regularly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is routine, trivial coverage of a local fight that essentially name drops him and nothing else...it would be weird if a mention like that didn't exist in a local paper. This is a WordPress blog, not a reliable source. This I would say does contribute to notability and this one to a lesser extent since it seems to straddle the line between trivial and significant coverage, but WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources, and I don't think having only two cuts it. The article also fails WP:ANYBIO, and certainly fails WP:NBOXING, though I don't think that's what the article was trying to assert notability for. If there is a religious figure-specific notability guideline I am not familiar with it. - Aoidh (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh: Typically, "multiple" means at least two. However, I would agree that just two is a low hurdle, especially when notability is difficult to ascertain even within that coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti:I should have clarified. Yes, multiple means at least two and sometimes two is enough, but the quality of the two must be considered, and even in the talk page archives at Wikipedia talk:Notability there's no agreement that there's a set number of references that meets the "multiple" standard, and sometimes two isn't enough of a "multiple". I would argue this is one of those cases. I realize I said two is not enough which seems like a blanket judgement against what defines "multiple" on WP:GNG, but what I meant was two is not enough in this instance, given the quality and scope of coverage in the two sources given. - Aoidh (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh: Oh good I think we are in agreement here. I am still weakly in favor of keep, but you're right in your stance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isabeau Méndez

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, Panama, and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG as most of the sources are trivial mentions, the others are links to the Spanish Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. The article fails WP:NACTOR because there's no indication that these stage productions were notable stage productions, just that she happened to play a character in a production. As for the shows, appearing on shows like Cantando por un sueño is like appearing on America's Got Talent or something, it contributes nothing towards notability. In the case of something like Los Brownies, she played a minor character on a non-notable soap opera. - Aoidh (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro Nakamura

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

As per maintenance tags: fictograpy, fancruft. Isaac Mendez has been AfD'd for similar reasons. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the reliable sources referenced in the article already. https://www.today.com/id/wbna16756741 and https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-oct-29-ca-performance29-story.html for instance. The general notability guidelines have been met. Any problems can be discussed on the talk page and solved through normal editing practices. Dream Focus 23:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dream Focus. //Julle (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FTR, I've already tried to delete all the WP:FANCRUFT and it got instantly reverted. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then the next step is to start a discussion on the article talk page explaining why this content should be removed. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article does appear to meet WP:GNG, the issues in the maintenance tags are all surmountable problems. I don't think every character necessarily in this franchise needs a standalone article, but that's something that should be handled on a case-by-case basis. It is my understanding, however, that this is, if not the protagonist, one of the important ones. This for example is a level of extensive coverage just for this one specific character that I doubt you'd find for every character. I think the notability is there, though I do think the article could use a rewrite. We shouldn't be using the word ironically when describing something for example, and the sheer amount of unsourced detail in the article seems staggeringly disproportionate to the sourced content. However these are problems that can be fixed by editing, not via deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Bocci

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

Fails notability guidelines for authors, and almost certainly written by the subject. – Ploni (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Italy. Ploni (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG by virtue of having no third-party reliable sources covering the subject, and fails WP:NAUTHOR entirely. - Aoidh (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hum3D

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

Falls short of meeting WP:NCORP--There's some trivial coverage citing it for its 3D models, and some borderline coverage (a bit PRish) of its Car Render Challenge, which currently has a stronger claim to meeting notability guidelines than the company, but basically nothing analyzing the company itself. I was not able to find additional coverage searching online, although editors better-versed in Ukrainian may have more luck. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Ukraine. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon dear @Rosguill. Thank you so much for the clarification.

I am in the process of improving the article. All your requirements will be taken into account. Have a nice day with respect Kuba Ali (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see 19 changes in the last 5 days, which is good. I would encourage you to keep working on it. But the article still looks to me like two things: a commercial for the company and a description of the competition. Perhaps it might be more productive to consider changing the focus of the article, so that it is primarily about the competition, maybe focusing on the fact that it is an annual competition and with comments about the company limited to those that are necessary to broaden the understanding of the competition. For example, with some digging, you might be able to find the winners for each of the eight years that the competition was held. Radzy0 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider the many recent edits to this article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The three new sources added to the article since this was opened are [1], [2], [3]. The first article is a half-step in the right direction: it's actual coverage of the company itself, but it's un-bylined from a source I'm not familiar with and that doesn't appear to have been discussed on Wikipedia yet, and it doesn't provide any independent analysis beyond a basic description of the company. If we're being particularly charitable, it could count as our first source towards meeting notability guidelines, but its companions fall short. The second piece is blatantly not independent, and the third is yet another press release about the design competition. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, thank you for your feedback. I've changed the CgSociety source to the 80.lv - both are authority websites on the 3d modeling market and they do not publish any information without fact-checking by an editor. Thinkinetic.blog is a blog of the software development company (official website) from Spain, that make popular 3d products - so I decided that it can prove the information. Also, Hum3D made a press release about furniture models only in the Ukrainian language, and there are some news websites had written about it. I have chose Apostrophe.ua as the most known (this news can be important to Hum3D because they known for a long time as car 3d modellers and right now developing also furniture). Leksunski (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lot of buzz about this company, but not a lot of the type of significant independent journalistic coverage we seek in WP:ORGCRIT. I wish the principals of this company the best, but I don't think there's a case to be made for notability for this company right now. FalconK (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FalconK! Please let me add a personal note, as a member of the 3D community. I've been following the contest for years, and I think the Challenge is one of the most significant events of the year among 3D artists. A lot of artists apply to participate, but not everyone passes under the conditions. Many contestants keep diaries in which they gradually post the progress of their artwork. While a large number of novice and experienced 3D artists follow the process. I really think that information about the organizer of such an important event for the 3D community could be useful for Wikipedia readers. I've added links to mentions in those print and online media for 3D artists that I'm aware of. I also see references in the article to mentions on well-known sites outside the 3D modeling niche, such as Forbes and Nvidia. Considering there aren't too many well-known brands in 3D modeling, I find these mentions notable. Flytermit (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm from Ukraine and found not so many good sources about the company. Not enough notable yet. --Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good afternoon dear panelists. I have checked many resources, including those in Ukraine. So it happens that the location of the company in Ukraine, but the main activity takes place all over the world and the importance of the company in the country of residence is less than in other countries, and this is the answer for Молдовський винний погріб. But my main argument is that why is Hum3D worse than a similar company such as Daz Productions, Inc.? As for me the importance of Hum3D and the "Hum3D Render Challenge" contest is significant in order for this page not to be deleted. Respectfully Kuba Ali (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kuba Ali pleae read: WP:WHATABOUTX to avoid such bad arguments in the future. Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your response, respected Молдовський винний погріб. I wanted to point out that the fact that you did not find enough sources in Ukraine can not be an argument for removal. As the page has enough significant sources. Thank you Kuba Ali (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Kuba, you must remember that for companies to be seen as notable, *each* source must meet all of WP:NCORP criteria which includes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Saying that the article has "significant sources" without pointing to (which paragraph in) which source contains material that meets requirements is not convincing. I also suggest strongly, just as Radzy0 and Rosguill mentioned above, to instead look at creating an article about the competition as it appears to be easier to find sources for this which might meet GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some Wikibusines activity on this article. Not a good sign. MER-C 17:20, 7 July 2022 (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!} 23:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz-Viktan

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

No sources provided. Terrible sourcing. Notability is extremely questionable. IgorTurzh (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire article was sourced to a WordPress blog. It should be noted that the article's title is incorrect. For those trying to find sources online the correct title is Soyuz-Victan, not Soyuz-Viktan. The company website made some quite extraordinary claims and I can verify that the company did exist and according to press releases did sell a fair amount of alcohol. But outside of press releases, non-independent sources, and passing mentions like this one, I can't find anything supporting the article. With what I was able to find online I have to conclude that the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. I say this with the caveat that I speak neither Ukrainian nor Russian and I suspect that sources may be available in those languages. If someone can find sources in those languages and they believe those sources show notability please ping me here and I will be more than happy to reassess based on new information. - Aoidh (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh I appreciate your research. It's what I ment when nominated the article. IgorTurzh (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Sourcing is poor and a Google search doesn't turn up anything else. I can't even get the English page to come up, but since they are reportedly bankrupt I wouldn't expect it to be maintained. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Bogris

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

No significant roles or contributions, as per WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and California. Ploni (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a source review finds that he is indeed in a few of the more credible sources (WaPo, LA Times) -- but none of the articles are WP:SIGCOV of him as an actor, they only mention that he played a part in the works. I do not see notability here. jp×g 04:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Scotti

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

No significant roles or contributions, as per WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of these sources are either links to his own books, a google search for his name (!) and likewise. The only source that comes close to SIGCOV is this interview with Living In Media, which I don't think puts him over the bar. Google's news results give very little to go on. jp×g 04:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Najera

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

No significant roles or contributions, as per WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Mexico, and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 30 June 2022 (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 YMCA buildings#YMCA May Building (Huntington, West Virginia). While not the explicit consensus, it makes sense as a viable AtD that solves to both the attribution should it be worth spinning this out into an article about the Huntington YMCA and deleting the present article, for which we lack GNG sourcing. I don't see a second relist achieving anything particularly different, consensus wise. Star Mississippi 02:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA May Building (Huntington, West Virginia)

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

Fails all our notability guidelines. We don't have a speedy deletion criterion for buildings, otherwise this would be a clear candidate. Fram (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and West Virginia. Fram (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have two secondary sources WalkingRadiance (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only routine local coverage. No apparent notability or significance. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My own search came up with virtually no coverage of the building (not to be confused with the Boston YMCA building). There's nothing notable about the building, let alone of the YMCA itself in Huntington, and no historic background behind it. --MuZemike 18:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a claim, that there's no history there. Good for YMCA Boston that it was the first in the US in 1851, but like its article, what's appropriate for the scope of Huntington WV YMCA includes its historic buildings, and its history goes back to 1885. --Doncram (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current article is appalling, but per fourth source in article author Castro, the organization was founded in 1885, and it has had major (expensive) buildings that can/should be covered in sections. The 1931 building (I'm not positive yet) appears to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing building in the Downtown Huntington Historic District. --Doncram (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That building appears to be of type covered in books on architecture and/or history, esp. of its city or state. What it has been named, to search on, is not clear. I cannot myself currently download these, but check ~~this NRHP document 1~~[better link below] from NARA, and there's an update to that. .--Doncram (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC

Update: upon review of the two NRHP documents, 2007 NRHP document and 1985 NRHP document, it turns out the historic district ran up 6th Avenue past 11th St. but did not include the 1931 building, presumably on the other side of the avenue. The Castro article of 2017 said was standing but vacant, and was a feature, perhaps part of a series, titled "Lost Huntington" suggesting it covered gone or goner things. ~~I can't find it immediately in Google Streetview so i am not sure what is up.~~ It is visible in Google Streetview (here is the more photogenic end with the "Young Men's Christian Association" door); it is the building at 620 11th St. and/or 1101 Sixth Avenue, at 38°25′05″N 82°26′22″W / 38.41818°N 82.43932°W / 38.41818; -82.43932 (former YMCA building) I started to try to contact the author of the 2017 article, but find it was apparently by historian James A. Casto (not Castro), who unfortunately died, age 78, on October 10, 2021.

Nonetheless from the 1885 age of the organization and it having had three major buildings, I think there exist substantial coverage, though not necessarily online. --Doncram (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to confuse the Huntington YMCA, which may perhaps be notable, and the Huntington YMCA May building, which is what the article and the AfD are about and which has no indication of notability (in the article and in your contribs here). Fram (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confusing anything. The scope of the article can/should be revised to cover the Huntington WV YMCA, allowing its entire history as an organization and owner/developer of at least 3 major buildings. I think I have been clear about that. Similar to treatment of some other YMCAs and YWCAs such as the Boston one in List of YMCA buildings and List of YWCA buildings list-articles (to which I've contributed), though, yes, the list-title is "buildings", but still. And similar to treatment of many hundreds or thousands of articles on churches and libraries, say, where it does not make sense to split coverage of organization vs. one or more of its buildings.

I am sure the larger topic is wikipedia-notable fundamentally, but if there aren't sources forthcoming here to support this article for now, the preferred thing to do would be to REDIRECT it to its row in List of YMCAs [specifically direct link to anchor at that row, List of YMCA buildings#YMCA May Building (Huntington, West Virginia) ] leaving redirect behind with the edit history. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"List of YMCA buildings" describes itself as a list of notable YMCA buildings. If there is consensus not to keep this article here, then that establishes the fact that it is not notable, and therefore does not belong on that list. (I haven't evaluated whether this is in fact notable, just pointing out the implications) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, items in a list don't each have to have a separate article or be proven to be individually Wikipedia-notable topics. "List-item notability" can be a lower standard defined by editors of the list-article. I have been, by the way, the creator and probably the main editor of many list-articles including the YMCA and YWCA ones. Items can be bluelinks, redlinks supported by souces, or "black links" where no future article is ever expected. --Doncram (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2022 (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 JetBrains#IDEs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AppCode

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT; any mention of this application should be in the main JetBrains article, to which AppCode should redirect. Included feature list is unencyclopedic. There is also PhpStorm and perhaps PyCharm and IntelliJ IDEA, but I want to focus on AppCode first because there may be meaningful differences in notability between these four. Ovinus (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JetBrains#IDEs, where information about AppCode has been summarised. Some of the other JetBrains products that were mentioned could also be redirected using WP:BLAR. Bonoahx (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. no notability per any criterion --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2022 (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!} 23:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Degbadjo

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

complete vanity spam, aside from a handful of photos appearing in various magazines, there is virtually no coverage of Degbadjo to substantiate an article, much less notability. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and France. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I posted some articles from elle and french press for 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samrothstein92 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He made vogueThaïlande cover magazine 2020 ref https://models.com/work/vogue-thailand-vogue-thailand-august-2020-cover--by-sunnery-james

Harper’s bazaar cover https://models.com/work/harpers-bazaar-greece-harpers-bazaar-greece-november-2020-cover And for finish you have all references in this website about fashion https://models.com/people/joseph-degbadjo Best. Sam Samrothstein92 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Fashion, Africa, and France. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a case for GNG or ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet GNG nor NARTIST criteria for notability. A BEFORE search reveals social media, native advertising, and photo credits only; I'm not finding any SIGCOV on him, perhaps it's too soon for this photographer. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. There's a good number of sources, but none of them appear to be independent of the subject. Without independent sources, there's no indication of notability. If for some reason the article is kept, it absolutely needs to be rewritten. The first sentence in the biography is in future tense for some reason, and the PSG (Paris Saint-Germain) sentence is talking about giving him carte blanche which seems like it's saying it gives him freedom to do what he wants, but in reality Carte Blanche is a specific initiative from Paris Saint-Germain where they feature photographers who take photos that are tied into the club. Saying PSG "gives him carte blanche" is confusing and misleading as to what that means. The whole article almost gives a machine-translated feel. - Aoidh (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2022 (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 by an Admin per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ameed Zaghal

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

non notable musician/artist, lacks any meaningful, in depth coverage from RS in arabic or english. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person. Ref (1, 3, 4 and 5) all talking about releasing a song called "أنا بتحدى" (English: 'Ana Bitahadaa), and all of it copy from each other the same text of the news in a promotional style. Ref (6, 8, 9 and 13) YouTube, Ref (10) anghami (Site to listen to songs), Ref (7) nothing about this singer, even ref title about another person named "Ameed Abd-Alaziz Salim", Ref (12) nothing about this singer, even ref title about another person named "Abdulaziz Abdulrahman". Ref (14) lyrics site. I see that there is a manipulation of the sources, using sources about similar characters "names" and even manipulating the titles of the sources in Wikipedia, taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of the majority here in the Arabic language. For example, see reference 12 at the first version of the article, the article creator named it " "Ameed Abdel Aziz wins the first star in Star Academy", but when you open the link, you'll found (Saudi Abdulaziz Abdulrahman Najm for "Star Academy") published on 14 June 2009! Same with reference 7! --Alaa :)..! 21:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, same with Draft:Raja Natsheh, Draft:Canadanews24 and Sadeq Qasem! --Alaa :)..! 21:15, 30 June 2022 (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 Fields Medal. Merge any relevant content and then redirect this page to the main article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fields medalists affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study

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

A purely trivia page with zero significance. Moreover it is not at all uncommon for mathematicians to visit IAS for a year, and this is the majority of the present "affiliations". It would be only particularly meaningful if restricted to permanent members of IAS, but the list would then be vastly smaller. Even then, the page would still only serve a promotional purpose. Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant encyclopedic content to Fields Medal. It makes no sense to have this page and not pages for other institutions. Some content could go into a subjection such as "Affiliation": for instance, "Of the 56 individuals who have received the Fields Medal as of 2015, 41 are mathematicians who have been affiliated with the IAS as some point in their career." looks like a relevant thing to mention in an appropriate section on characteristics of Fields Medal recipients. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I merged a bit of relevant information to Fields Medal. I think the rest of the article should just be scrapped. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fields Medal to preserve the attribution history of the edits mentioned above. Nothing suggests that people other than the IAS have cared about this. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^^ IAS is compiling its own list of Fields medalists associated with the Institute to be displayed on the upcoming IAS Accolades webpage. This article is superfluous and need not remain available IAScomms1930 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2022 (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. But considering there were suggestions of draftification here, contact me or WP:REFUND if editors would like to attempt a new draft. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nasima Akter Nisha

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

Superficial media mentions with no apparenet notability per WP:ANYBIO Morpho achilles (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the nominator noted, many of the sources have passing mentions at best. There are several in depth pieces but they all appear to be interviews. She has won what is reputed to be a somewhat significant award, but the notability of that award is a bit challenging to really understand. It feels like the sources may have more coverage on Women and E-Commerce Trust than Nisha, maybe there's an article there? Ravensfire (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. Most of them are primary (interviews) or passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: As currently written, it's just not ready for main space. The award is a plus, but the lack of good independent secondary sources really hampers this article. No reference for the award (trivial to find) which is where I would hope there would have been some solid coverage focusing on Nisha. I would advice the creator to ask the article be copied to their user space or possibly as a draft for continued work. Reaching out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Requests for some assistance may also help the article's development in user/draft space.

Ravensfire (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2022 (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 Immigration to Norway. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyans in Norway

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

more barely sourced cruft - can be adequately covered in Immigration to Norway, just as the rest of this creators similar stubs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To Immigration to Norway. When this is described as "Information about Kenyans living in Norway" and the article rests on that as a reliable source, it's a pretty clear indication that this doesn't need a separate article. Seems to fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY's "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" section and certainly fails to meet WP:GNG in general. - Aoidh (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and blank) - to Immigration to Norway; stats already there. Atsme 💬 📧 01:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, same rationale as with all other mass creations here. MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Immigration to Norway, doesn't warrant a separate article. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Immigration to Norway, too small a subject for an article.--Chuka Chief_talk 16:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khawla Chemakh

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

Non-notable actor etc. Sources do not meet WP:GNG, and a search finds nothing better. Career achievements don't come even close to satisfying WP:NACTOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tunisia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As nominator says, nothing approaches the multiple major roles for acting notability. There is nothing in the article about the third-party coverage that would be required for general notability.
- Originator is a single-purpose account who created this article in draft space and then moved it to article space after being autoconfirmed. Article was draftified, and was then declined by two reviewers, and then moved back to article space by originator, and nominated for deletion. May be promotional editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:NACTOR by simple virtue of the fact that the roles she was in were not from notable films/television. I did search for a few of the productions to see if maybe some of them were notable but I really couldn't find anything The article also fails WP:GNG because while there are 17 references in the article, nearly all of them are non-independent sources. The ones that do appear to be independent sources such as this are nothing more than very trivial mentions. - Aoidh (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Engebretson

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage or book reviews in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill person. Edwardx (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources seem to be ones that mention his work, but not give him in-depth coverage per se. The sum total of what we have is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG through lack of reliable sources that discuss him. Some minor coverage exists within the context of things he has written, but those mentions are very minor and do not show notability for the author himself. The article similarly fails WP:NAUTHOR. - Aoidh (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Net Health

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

Not notable. Does'nt meet either WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG. Trivial announcements and coverage in too narrow media outlets Bash7oven (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic WP:CORPDEPTH fail, i.e hiring and acquisitions. No effective coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 21:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. There's certainly routine coverage that can verify that the company exists, but there's nothing showing notability and even the article itself doesn't aspire to any claims of notability, it's very much a routine "here's a business, it exists and people work here" kind of article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see, @MrsSnoozyTurtle: PRODed last June this article. Maybe they will be interested to comment here. --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Morpho achilles, thank you for the ping. To avoid any appearance of WP:CANVASSING, I won't be !voting here. I'll just note that there have been no significant improvements to the article since I Prodded it back then for similar reasons. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 6 July 2022 (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 Burhanpur. Hog Farm _Talk 13:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burhanpur Municipal Corporation

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

During new page patrol I came across about 120 articles by the same editor awaiting review. I passed about 10 of them and IMO about 110 need to get deleted. The 110 are 3-4 mass-produced "bundles", each about a certain type of entity in India. I had a dialog with the editor and they agreed to stop producing these types of articles. This article is an example / test case of one of those bundles which is "Municipal Corporations" For these, the government of a city is technically called a "Municipal Corporation". For conversation I'll guess that this is a bundle of 50 articles of this exact type. The editor did mass creation of articles separate from the cities which they govern. For example, the title of the subject article is about the government of the city of Burhanpur. IMO there will be a slam-dunk decision that this is a fork / should not be a separate article from the city. The question is what to do with it. These were created by starting with info which is in common to ALL such municipal corporations and then editing in the city name and typically putting in a very specific narrow factoid (e.g. election of one person) and a reference for that. So 95% of the article is really not about the subject, and 5% is trivial narrow factoids within it. For a comparison between two of these articles see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANorth8000%2Ftest&type=revision&diff=1095827125&oldid=1095826356 I don't see how any type of a "merge" for 50 of these could actually be accomplished, plus there is really no material suitable for a merge. So I would argue for an outright "delete" or possibly a redirect without requiring merge of any material. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Firstly, thank you for your approach of doing a test/pilot. This could be a good role model for other editors wishing to do mass deletions. Also for the detail in the nomination, which gives us context without being a wall of text.
Delete It looks like a copy-paste template, it does not contain encyclopaedic content. Before I looked I thought maybe we'd have a difficult decision on our hands, but I found it easy to say delete here. As always, I remain open minded to being persuaded if someone has a logical reason to keep. CT55555 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect if it works. I echo the above sentiments about this test article. Atsme 💬 📧 17:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not seeing an actual argument for deletion here. So the articles were mass-created and are lacking in specific content but, bearing in mind WP:NODEADLINE, why do we need to delete them? Are they not verifiable? Not notable? Eligible for speedy deletion? I also don't understand why the nominator is so quick to discard the option of merging or redirecting to the parent articles on cities, which would seem the obvious alternative to deletion here. – Joe (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the simple reason is that it's bad-idea fork from the respective city article. All of the other discussed items add to that rationale. Regarding your other question, the nomination covered that in detail.....not sure if you has time to read the whole thing. Including that having a redirect with no requirement to merge the non-existent suitable material would be fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and India. – Joe (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Most of Category:Municipal corporations in Madhya Pradesh is copy-paste nothingness stating general concepts of how local governments work without any specificity to the particular places/topics. Something that is not a legitimate article about its purported subject can certainly be deleted. Nodeadline is not a justification for keeping crap pages expecting someone to eventually fix them. This isn't just at NPP, Kakinada Municipal Corporation is 7 years old and has zero content about the Kakinada Municipal Corporation other than the name of the commissioner: it's a paragraph about Kakinada and then the same functions and revenue sources about these local governments in general, duplicating Municipal corporation (India). In this case I don't see anything to merge, but generally relevant content belongs in the main article until a split is warranted. Reywas92^Talk 19:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Reywas92. The article creator is producing masses of cookie-cutter articles with no real substance. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi North8000,Shellwood,CT55555,Joe Roe,Atsme, Reywas92 and Mccapra. Dear all. I respect your opinions. However, all of these are statutory organisations but if you give me opportunity to move them to draft space so that I can correct them and improve I will be thankful to all of you. Similar ones for other places were existing which were not structured and properly written. I did it to get quality in Wikipedia. They are notable. Six of my articles were deleted through this process and I know no one can pass this stage. I had to work on them though they seem to be copy and paste. To respect my hard work I request all of you. Certainly it will not be encouraging if I loose them. If the articles doesnt meet Wikipedia guidelines than I can understand. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Gardenkur: Thanks for your post. And from our previous conversations, I respect that you have good intentions and are trying to cooperate. However I also believe that you do not understand the main criteria that we are dealing with here which is not article quality, it is criteria for existence as a separate article. Roughly speaking, you have about 50 articles with situations identical to this awaiting NPP review and another 60 articles with situations nearly identical to this awaiting NPP review for a total of about 110. How about this for a deal? You support moving all 110 to draft space. And you work with me to understand the criteria regarding the first few that you are intending to move back into article space. To be honest, I think that you will learn that it best not to move them back into article space. But even then, you would have an understanding on how to continue your prolific editing without running afoul of the Wikipedia staqndards, thus having a much more enjoyable Wikipedia editing experience. In exchange, I would support moving this article and the rest of the other 110 articles to draft space instead of taking them all to AFD which is the inevitable alternative. I can't speak for others, and also hope for their input, but I would support and what I described. I think that this is what you already requested on my talk page. Is that agreeable with you? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Gardenkur, my comment here holds true here as well. See all the other articles about cities, and how the smaller parts of government and government services (utilities, municipal courts, bus stations, even schools & hospitals, etc.) are included in the main article about the city. We summarize, rather than include all the details. Also see WP:CORP, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:LOCAL, and WP:GNG. Atsme 💬 📧 01:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi North8000 and Atsme. Thanks a lot for your support and understanding. No need to question North. I never denied. I only felt before other editors mess up with these articles presenting in wrong way I will do the best to improve standards here. Will follow as you all guide and really looking forward to work with each one of you removing personal opinions. Last 6 deleted articles were really a bad experience for me though I leave them to move forward. Thanks to one and all here. Gardenkur (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gardenkur: Thanks for your post. Just to clarify, I will interpret that as accepting my offer described above. If I am wrong, please tell me now. Otherwise I await and welcome any objections or input from others. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 And Gardenkur, I just want to say that most of us have been in a similar situation as you are now, but no one I'm aware of has been as prolific as you in article creation. You have great energy, and I'm confident that after you've had a chance to work with North8000, you will be a great asset to the project. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 01:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atsme. Thanks again for your motivation and every effort is only to get quality here. Will try from my knowledge and rest can improve further. Wikipedia is a global plaform and it should have best quality. Will continue working.Gardenkur (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I second Joe on this. No real reason for deletion is given. It's by no means implausible that acceptable articles on municipal corporations could be written, and draftification is the pretty route to silent deletion. These can easily be redirected to the city articles. Ingratis (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ingratis. I respect and thank for your opinion. Gardenkur (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2022(UTC)

Hi North8000. I accept North. No second thoughts. Sorry further efforts will be as guided. Thanking you in advace. Gardenkur (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support agreement per ATD. @ Gardenkur, it seems you have found someone willing to be a mentor. If this is accepted please be aware that there are odds there could be some merges, redirects, and even deletions. Sometimes a subject, especially if there is bare notability, is better presented in a parent article. This can have two positive outcomes, 1)- Notability is not an issue with content, 2)- Added material with references can create a better article. If this is successful at least three things can happen, a)- Articles that are published stand a "very" slim chance of being brought to AFD (slim only because nearly anything is possible), b)-You will learn some valuable information, c)- Going forwards articles you publish will likely also not be brought to AFD. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2022 (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 draftify. ✗plicit 23:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nafsika Antypas

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and television personality, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers or television personalities.
As always, writers and television personalities don't get an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, and must pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is referenced almost entirely to blogs, limited-circulation trade magazines, Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person and other content that isn't support for notability at all. The only two genuinely GNG-worthy footnotes in the article (The Times and the Daily Record) are not about her, but just glancingly namecheck her existence as a person who was victimized by the actual subject of those pieces -- which means they don't singlehandedly clinch her notability either, if they're the only genuinely solid and GNG-worthy media hits she has.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and Quebec. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She's probably not notable but I must admit it is a fascinating detail in the ongoing saga of former Wikipedia editor Nicholas Alahverdian. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass the general notability guidelines.--Darwinek (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and improve - She apparently has a reasonably well-regarded show on A&E. The existing article has puffery issues, but The LA Weekly, Daily Record, and Vegan Lifestyle Magazine articles are enough to satisfy the GNG. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I worked on the article a bit in the past. It should have never been moved into the mainspace. A WP:BEFORE check made me think that she was borderline notable, but I have not examined most of the sources for their reliability. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I was going to close this AFD but see that I have already commented upon it so instead I'll just put in a vote to Draftify this article. I think she has borderline notability for your show and, depending on how the Alahverdian story goes, she could have increased public profile as victim of a fraud. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 7 July 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Napper

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

non-notable businessman, no in depth or independent coverage. Nothing in the way of meeting GNG or anything else. On a side note, there is another Paul Napper who is a psychologist who may be notable, but it certainly isn't this one. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article on non-notable subject. WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO are not met. The sources offered in the article do not even support the text - not to mind supporting a claim to notability. The sources available elsewhere (news searches and the like) do not support a claim to notability either. While not immediately relevant to this AfD, the PAID, PROMO, FV and apparent REFBOMBing issues are difficult to ignore. Guliolopez (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very clearly not notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul W (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spleodrach (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Finnegas (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (for what it's worth). -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shamir Hasan

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

Insufficient research impact within or without academia to meet WP:NACADEMIC. – Ploni (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bihar, and India. Ploni (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney animated universe characters

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

As far as I can tell, this appears to be an attempt to create a list of every character, no matter how minor, that ever appeared in a piece of animation created by Disney. Not only is this a blatant example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (falling under the "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as....persons (real or fictional)" example), but the entire premise of this list is WP:OR. There is no such thing as the "Disney Animated Universe" in the sense that it is being used for this list. There is no sourced content aside from IMDB being used to cite some of the voice actors. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't really a "universe" of Disney animation, but certainly lots of animated Disney characters do have their own articles, a list of those wouldn't be out of order, even if this spefic list isn't the one we should have.★Trekker (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no "Disney animated universe" so the article should not exist on that merit alone as the very concept of it is flawed. There are no sources to support inclusion in such a list (as the list topic doesn't even exist), and the list topic itself fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. - Aoidh (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no such thing as a "Disney animated universe", fails WP:SALAT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It fails WP:LISTN, doesn't it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Malas

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Serveux

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panweichi Kaleopa

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Rocha

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:56, 3 July 2022 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 14:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Flemming

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

Autobiographical, and appears not to have enough significant coverage to meet GNG. – Ploni (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, United States of America, and Texas. Ploni (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does the military medal described in the last few lines in the intro help notability? Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear self-promotion with lack of any secondary coverage, and the medal described in the lead is an award for ROTC cadets given out by a private organization, not a government award. Kges1901 (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for every retired career military person to post their resume.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An O-6 would presumably not get an automatic pass for WP:ANYBIO, and I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. The decorations and positions held appear insufficient to warrant inclusion. At best, this is just a resume. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, apparently written by the subject's WP:SPA. Claim of notability isn't at all notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boneless Children Foundation

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

An unsigned and apparently non-notable band. The article, created by Davidsophia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same name as a band member) was previously PROD deleted as The Boneless Children Foundation (same content, created by same author). This version was nominated for WP:PROD in 2019, but that was removed with hopes of more references, but none have been forthcoming. The band appears to be unsigned, to have produced only self-published work, to have met with minimal chart success, and to consist of members who aren't themselves notable. Reliable independent coverage appears limited to a few minutes of radio play, some "what's on" local listings, and 3 words in a newspaper blog. I can't find any evidence of further notability or substantial independent coverage, and we've been asking for that for 13 years. So I think this squarely fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, and should not be in Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the PROD-nominator back in 2019 and I've literally been meaning to AfD this ever since. Nominator found the same amount of sources I did back in 2019, best described with the technical term "fuck-all". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Sources are fairly unimpressive, for the most part. I was able to find one newspaper reference ("Killing My Lobster pop!". The San Francisco Examiner. San Francisco, California. 2004-02-23. p. 11. Retrieved 2022-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.</ref>). A brief mention in the NYT does seem relevant. Overall, it doesn't seem like there is much to work with, but if someone were to WP:HEY the article I would certainly change my mind. jp×g 05:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 15:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manikyam

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews were found in a BEFORE. PROD was removed with rationale, "33 incoming links indicate potential significance", but what other pages link to this page is irrelevant to its notability...especially since all the pages that link to this one are just actors/filmmakers. Notability isn't inherited. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I also don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, the creator was indeffed as a sockpuppet (of a master blocked in 2019) and is by far the primary author [4], so this would also be eligible for speedy deletion per CSD G5. ComplexRational (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Capone

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

Fails GNG, NACTOR, and whatever else. Minor roles, no in-depth coverage. Being the grand-nephew of Scarface is not enough to warrant an article. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bibliographies, and Crime. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is not there to justify a stand alone article on this person who was in a reality TV show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crist Ballas

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

Sources are lacking. I don't know what the "Emmy Award®" or "Peabody Award®" are, but I couldn't find him in the Emmy or Peabody databases. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a List of Peabody Award winners (1990–1999), but he's not there in 1993 (claimed in his article) or any of the other years. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Emmy "reference" is a dead link, and he's absent from 63rd Primetime Emmy Awards and 38th Daytime Emmy Awards (2011). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2022 (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 Immigration to Norway. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroonians in Norway

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

Non-notable group; fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a database for every expat group under the sun. Curbon7 (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Cameroon, and Norway. Curbon7 (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not offended by anything, nor am I trying to violate Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, argue, or be rude, but I don’t think it is necessary to delete this article, because I believe it is essential information, and I believe Wikipedia needs information about these types of things. Please understand that I am not trying to lie, or violate any Wikipedia protocols whatsoever. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably not notable, as numbers less than 1000 individuals. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest that the topic is notable user is being VERY disruptive with multiple articles like this. Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Immigration to Norway, same rationale as with all other mass creations here. MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Immigration to Norway; a group consisting of some nine hundred people just doesn't seem like there is going to be enough for an article. If it were about emigrants of a broader geographical area (like Africa, or sub-Saharan Africa) there would be a solid argument for a standalone article, but it is hard to imagine something like this becoming an article of note (in a way that's substantially different from, say, Senegalese people in Norway). jp×g 22:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Sviblov

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

Advert, SOAP, does not meet WP:GNG. Recreated again after this nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladislav Sviblov Bash7oven (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been moved to the draft, and after being finalized according to the recommendations, the article was returned to the main space by another user. Валерий Пасько (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT since author isn't respecting consensus. It's slightly different enough not to be a G4, but is substantively the same and nothing has changed w/r/t Sviblov's notability. Star Mississippi 02:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create this article again. As a result of the discussion, according to the consensus, it was recommended to create an article in the draft.

"There's good consensus here that the deleted article was unsuitable for mainspace for a variety of reasons, including poor sourcing and the need for better Russian->English translation. However, there's feeling that the subject may be notable and work on Draft:Vladislav Sviblov should continue to correct the problems in the original article."

Аfter finalizing the article in the draft and review, the article was moved to the main space.

And what about the argument about the significance of this person?

"Major shareholder and CEO of one of the largest Russian gold mining companies. Shareholder of a company that develops one of the ten largest zinc deposits in the world. A large article in Forbes magazine and coverage in the media of Russia at the federal level about the activities of this entrepreneur"

Nothing was said on this argument Валерий Пасько (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 02:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Faizullah

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

This article was moved to draft space for further improvement but unfortunately it had been move warred. clearly a puff piece with various rubbish sources based on user generated content. Maliner (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Maliner (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bangladesh. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have copyedited the article and seriously I don't think a PhD thesis written at the University of Dhaka about Muhammad Faizullah would be user-generated. The subject might not have received coverage in media due to WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS but that doesn't mean they aren't notable, and in this case, I do see some facts that ascertain subjective notability. Nonetheless, AfD is not cleanup, and the nominator needs to explain how resources used in the article are rubbish and user-generated. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is highly problematic and a thesis is not considered an RS. Even the 'Banglapedia' article does not stand up the assertion he wrote 100 books, for instance. A mess, really and fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Saying "a thesis is not considered an RS" oversimplifies the WP:SCHOLARSHIP section of WP:RS, which says Phd theses are RS, but notes some things to be cautious of. For the statement, "He was involved in the management of this madrasa until his death in 1976", it's almost certainly wrong to cite five pages of the candidate's conclusion, where they're summarizing their opinion. Surely such a simple fact must appear somewhere earlier in the thesis (and cite a source there). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AfD is not cleanup and the nominator has not explained over the last week how the sources are rubbish. I've been writing about Islamic scholars since last three years and I seriously think that this person has been very much notable in his own field, Islamic jurisprudence, thus earning the title of "Grand Mufti". He was the Chief-Mufti at the oldest and largest Deobandi seminary in Bangladesh, thus, answering and approving religious edicts from the seminary, and they've have huge audience. Nonetheless, his being "subject" of a doctoral thesis at a public university affirms that he has been academically studied. Though this does not add up to WP:GNG but we all know GNG is not everything. This subject has subjective notability in my opinion, so I'm in favor of a keep. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Book shops are not better sources which are cited here. PhD thesis does not count for notability. Other sources are not reachable. Thank you. Jijisipu (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National Encyclopedia and a PhD thesis are enough for notability.–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 17:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHe is mentioned in numerous sources and encyclopedia (Banglapedia as well as the renowned Arabic encyclopedia al-Budur al-Madhiyyah which is a famous encyclopedia on the scholars of the Hanafi school). In addition to that there is of course the PhD thesis mentioned above. He was not any religious figure of Bangladesh, but the Grand Mufti - please do look into what that means before trying to get it deleted. SalamAlayka (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2022 (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 sourcing isn't sufficient, especially for a BLP. If an established editor would like this in draft space, just ask. Star Mississippi 02:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkar Techy

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

A YouTuber whose claim to fame appears to be a brief mention in BBC. The other sources are essentially republished or translated press releases. Fails WP:NBIO. Also, repeatedly moved from draftspace to articlespace by the author without a formal AFC review. M4DU7 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and India. M4DU7 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep also find this site [5], seems to be a reliable site. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In-depth coverage in many significant and reliable sources already seen as references. Definetly passes WP:NBIO Jehowahyereh (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Convert into Draft/Draftify strange YouTube personality with on the edge of notability. Could be drafte if not deleted. --Bigneeerman (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. From what I can see, fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS, and potentially WP:BLP1E. Our criteria for BLPs requires that sources span a breadth of time chronologically, and I am just not seeing that in this case. Additionally, the sources with sig cov all appear to be about the scandal, running afoul of BLP1E. If we do draftify, the article should be forced to go through the WP:AFC process and I would suggest protections making it only possible for admin to move the draft into main space.4meter4 (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kid says something daft on Youtube, creates passing controversy. That's it. Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Some of the references seem reliable. Onmyway22 talk 05:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Ashkar Techy is a famous Indian Youtuber has archived many YouTube Creator Awards. "Ashkar techy" is the main channel and he has some other famous channels like Ashkar techy 2.O (253K subscribers). ashkartechy.com is the official website of Ashkar Techy.

The user account HabeebAreekode who voted for Strong Keep may have been created by Ashkar Techy. He accidentally said "ashkartechy.com is my official website"[6] in the above unsigned vote. But after some time he removed[7] those words. He is trying to keep his article and nominated 3 articles created by GPL93 for deletion. 2409:4073:4E9A:7D54:0:0:4F09:F20C (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only are the sources sub par and unreliable, this is nothing more than vanity spam sourced to blackhat SEO, press releases masquerading as journalism and obvious spam. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG given that the referencing is not reliable and most coverage is paid for press. GPL93 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt per 4meter4, Praxidicae and GPL93, and ban sockpuppets, Jehowahyereh and HabeebAreekode from editing and creation of the title, Ashkar Techy. Jenifer Hilton (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article meets the WP:GNG. SalmanArkd (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.Henriklars (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT It seems some newly created users trying to create a false alarm and trying hard to remove this page. some comments and edits in the page after this AFD seems suspicious. Particularly user HabeebAreekode, then the IP address (talk) only edit is in this AFD. Then the user who did a keep vote - SalmanArkd also the user talk everyone is newly created account and edited only in this page. This seems strange and intentional. Any admin may please check if they are all same person with multiple accounts Jehowahyereh (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehowahyereh (Non-administrator comment) no comments if they are the same person, but both SalmanArkd and HabeebAreekode have been blocked and tagged as sock/abusing multiple accounts. No admin will also comment publicly if the IP address belongs to either or both accounts for privacy reasons. – robertsky (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle McCammon

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

Refs are passing mentions. Nothing of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nikolaevich Neverov

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

Self promotional work that fails WP:GNG. Internal links like [8], [9] have been added in places, and make no mention of Neverov. He is listed as the director of the Autonomous non-profit research organization "Institute for Psychological and Economic Research" - the website of which does not list him in this capacity, does not indicate any significance to this organisation, and has a fake panal of experts using photogallery models, and then uses those same pictures for their staffers under different names. There is blatant misuse of sources such as an external link for "IPEI is one of the world's leading think tank in the field of behavioral approach to the global economy and geopolitics." which is to the Russian wikipedia's version of Big Four accounting firms, which of course makes no mention of IPEI. This looks like an out and out hoax, perhaps to boost a scam organisation. Spokoyni (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3. Thanks for the research. This is just blatant hoax. For example: a reverse image search on the fake panel's members shows that they aren't any kind of experts. They're "handsome models wallpapers". —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this sounds like an unsubstantiated puff piece.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX or at least WP:PROMO. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: New page with multiple issues like external links in body of article. Looks like a copy of a cv. No in line citations or references. Excessive details in publications, etc. Gusfriend (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is determined to be a hoax or excessively promotional it should be deleted rather than draftified. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, definitely do not draftify this. Spokoyni (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buymie

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP - unremarkable grocery delivery app, no national coverage of Ireland/UK let alone meeting any NCORP criteria. Coverage limited to interviews, funding, announcements. No independent, in-depth. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ireland. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a little on the fence here due to the sheer number of articles in RSes, but it seems that most of these are based on press releases. My conclusion is that there is one source that may meet the notability standards, plus four RS articles that are likely based off of press releases, which fails WP:NCORP.

Of the nine sources currently in use, sources 1, 5, 6, and 7 are likely based off of press releases, but are published in reliable sources. However, due to a lack of in-depth coverage, I don't think these count towards notability. 2 is a short entry in a listicle, 3 is an interview, so both don't count. Sources 4 and 8 are duplicates of other sources already listed (likely based off the same press releases). Source 9 [10] comes closest to the standards for establishing notability, and a paywalled article from the same site [11] could be similar, but I am still not certain that independence can be verified here. Toadspike (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology of Heroes

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

This is a badly named universe of Heroes or Heroes-verse or such, i.e. an article describing the setting of the show Heroes. It's a poorly referenced fancrufty WP:OR. Even if we could find some sources discussing the universe from a scholarly perspective (which I failed to do), WP:TNT would apply. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there aren't reliable independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yale University in popular culture

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

The same case as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johns Hopkins University in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford University in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulane University in popular culture. A mostly unreferenced collection of trivia aka list of works that mention Yale University. Such a list fails WP:LISTN, and the article fails WP:GNG/WP:IPC. The best source seems to be this article Vulture (magazine), but it's rather tongue-in-cheek, although at least it mentions a few works (it is also narrowly focused on teenage characters in movies, and I don't think we can extrapolate from that to the broad topic of YU in pop-culture). At best, I'd suggest redirecting this to Yale_University#In_fiction_and_popular_culture, and adding the Vulture reference there (it seems more relevant than what is present there right now). And I guess if someone cares, this is ok to mention the Batman connection there, too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Education, Schools, and Connecticut. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus at the Tulane and Stanford cases. A shortened version of this list should be on the Yale article, but currently it is an arbitrary collection of information with no notability per WP:SALAT. Toadspike (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list is largely a collection of uncited trivia and original research. While I am under the impression that an article could theoretically exist under this title, the current one would need to be destroyed so that a new one could be created. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While a small prose section on the topic already exists on the main Yale University article and could potentially be expanded, this is just a list of largely non-notable trivia (nearly all of these entries are things like "Yale is mentioned in this" or "this character is said to have gone to Yale") with no actual sourced discussion of the topic as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and nothing to WP:PRESERVE, per Susmuffin. In the outside chance there are sources for this topic, you would have to start a new article from scratch. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shooterwalker's argument is very compelling. It's past time for WP:WikiProject Content. Are we going to be an academic work that will actually endure like Britannica or a pop culture flash? 209.141.120.92 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unsalvageable. This is trivia which fundamentally is unencyclopedic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with thanks to Susmuffin and Shooterwalker for clarity of thought and focus on the purpose of this encyclopedia. We should be collectively vigilant against such WP:OR promoting trivia. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a second I assumed it was already deleted. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2022 (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 Draftify. until such time as her nomination is confirmed as consensus is clear the sourcing isn't otherwise sufficient. There is no deadline, but this preserves the content and attribution. Given conduct of MIAJudges, will SALT the mainspace article. Star Mississippi 02:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany M. Cartwright

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

Not appointed, not notable. Tagged by Iseult, draftified by me, tags removed, draft reverted by creator, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL, some serious WP:OWN IMHO. And I wonder why. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Law, United States of America, and Washington. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject has been nominated to by the US president for judgeship pending appointment to a federal bench - a near certainty and hardly "not appointed, not notable." In fact, a U.S. Senate panel in June 2022 advanced President Biden's nominations, which pushes three women, including Cartwright, to the next step in confirmation, information that is in the article with a reliable source. The subject has also received notable awards, and multiple reliable sources can be found about the subject. Passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: WP:USCJN offers the guidelines for this case. Draftify until after the full confirmation vote. Federal judges are notable per WP:NPOL; however, USCJN#3 states that Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. Considering the committee vote was a narrow 12-10, there is a chance her confirmation vote by the full Senate will fail. However, as the guideline outlines, she may still be notable per WP:GNG after that point, as the guidelines notes this is rare. This article was created far WP:TOOSOON. As far as WP:OWN, I don't see anyone claiming ownership at all; please clarify that statement. Curbon7 (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:GNG at the moment by the way, as there does not appear to be any WP:SIGCOV of her. Curbon7 (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC Snickers2686 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Snickers2686, How does she pass WP:BASIC at the moment? I am not seeing any sources that provide WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify unconfirmed nominees for federal judgeships do not meet inclusion criteria, and there is nothing else to add towards notability at the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She is a nominee for a federal judgeship & even has already had hear hearing in the SJC. Please do not remove this article. MIAJudges (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. She does not currently have notability, which is why I tagged it. There are a bunch of articles created about nominees for ambassadorships of judgeships who have not yet been confirmed; I don't agree with this practice. These articles belong in mainspace when and only when they have been confirmed, and even then WP:GNG must be passed. It's far too soon. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 03:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely & respectfully disagree with this. Wikipedia has a long tradition of making pages for nominees for important positions. If the senate rejects her, we can then go ahead & delete he page. While she is under consideration as a nominee from the leader of the free world for a senate confirmed position, she is an important enough of a figure to have a Wikipedia page. There is no limit on the number of pages Wikipedia can have so I am not even sure what the harm is in having a page for her. This is honestly the first time I have ever even heard of a nominee to be a federal judge not deserving to have a page on this site. As a daily editor on this site, I wholly do not agree with this assertion & do not give consensus whatsoever to delete her, nor any other nominee for a federal judgeships page. Thank you

MIAJudges (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MIAJudges, please consider reading WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Just about every argument you made in that reply should be avoided. Curbon7 (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Not a close call IMHO and I'm concerned that some editors have not even bothered to run BEFORE searches here and are failing to heed WP:HEY. Clearly notable even just based on the sources cited thus far. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DocFreeman24, I am so confused by this statement. First of all, do not insinuate that I (or JPL, Iseult, and Alexandermcnabb for that matter) did not conduct a WP:BEFORE search. Second, "failing to heed WP:HEY"? This is a complete gibberish statement. Thirdly, none of the sources thus far provide any WP:SIGCOV with reliability:
- [12] Primary source questionnaire written by the subject herself
- [13] No SIGCOV
- [14] Reprint of above
- [15] Reprint of above
- [16] Not reliable as it is a party-aligned advocacy group
- [17] Not reliable, as it is her workplace
- [18] Obviously not reliable
- [19] Press release
- [20] No SIGCOV
- [21] No SIGCOV and it's an interview with the subject anyways
- [22] No SIGCOV
- [23] Same questionnaire as above again
- [24] No SIGCOV and press release
- [25] Provides SIGCOV, but reliability is extremely tenuous
- [26] This says literally nothing
- [27] No SIGCOV
- [28] Provides SIGCOV, questionable reliability.
What world are you possibly living in where you believe this is a "speedy keep"? You've been an editor for a while, you should know better at this point. Curbon7 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point about the lack of BEFORE searches is that I found Refs 8 & 9 immediately after running a BEFORE search and yet they hadn't even been used in the article or referenced in this AFD!

Also, the things you are describing as not SIGCOV are baffling to me. Refs 2-5 are literally only about the individual subject of the article! And I don't agree at all that Ref 5 is not reliable simply because it comes from a politically aligned group. Refs 9-11 are about notable cases she has worked on and she is quoted at length in them. And Refs 14 & 17 we aren't even discussing because you agree they constitute SIGCOV (and I find both to be sufficiently reliable personally)! Also, the point about WP:HEY is clearly not gibberish because it's now been made twice in this AFD!

I don't know why you're trying to impose a heightened standard as to this individual but this article is far from the sort we need to deal with at AFD. This individual is well within the bounds of GNG in my humble opinion. And please keep it WP:CIVIL and avoid hurling insults like you do in your closing sentence. Editors can disagree but there's no justification for insulting someone like that simply because they disagree with you. DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a different between insulting and constructively criticizing or disagreeing. Insulting is if I called you dumb (which you're not btw) or something like that. If you feel I've personally attacked you, by all means take me to ANI. I'm just surprised you consider this (and 3 and 4 are just reprints of this) to be providing SIGCOV. A source that focuses solely on the subject, but says basically nothing of substance or just lists positions is not SIGCOV. In sources 9-11 that I linked, these are only passing mentions; they're fine to use in the article obviously, but they do not provide Cartwright with any notability and so are irrelevant for the purposes of this AfD. 14 comes directly from a senator, so the reliability is going to be questionable, and 17 is probably unreliable as it is a blog. I'm not tryign to push a heightened standard, I am trying to push the established standard as laid out in WP:NPOL and WP:USCJN. It's not like we're arguing for hard deletion anyways, just pushing it into draftspace for like a month or so. Curbon7 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Heed WP:HEY in what way? And passes WP:GNG or WP:NPOL in what way? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point was simply that multiple additional references have been added since the article was first contested thus my reference to WP:HEY. And as explained in my other reply above, it seems pretty clear to me at this point that the article passes GNG given that, IMHO, there are at least eight references that sufficiently cover the subject of the article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources were dealt with quite effectively, in my humble opinion, by User:Curbon7 above. They most certainly do not constitute WP:HEY. As an unelected official, she presents zero notability right now, and fails WP:NPOL as per my nomination. Apart from this nomination to a political post, which she has not achieved, there is no other reason to consider her notable. Easy peasy, really. Draftify was the best route, but that was rejected by the article's author, User:Snickers2686, which is why we're all here right now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Once the subject is conformed, it can move to the mainspace, per WP:USCJN. Nominees must meet WP:GNG with multiple independent, reliable sources. --Enos733 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Alimonti

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV. There is a bit of coverage here, but not enough to satisfy the guidelines. JTtheOG (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nom that the brief Samoa Observer coverage (little more than a few quotes) isn't enough to establish notability on its own, and my search wasn't able to identify any additional GNG-qualifying sources. No reasonable alternatives to deletion are apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2022 (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. This is articles for deletion, not articles for transwiki. Nobody here argues for deletion. Whether the content should be transwikied somewhere is a matter for discussion on the target wiki. If it is transwikied, a proper deletion request can be made again. Sandstein 08:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

X86 instruction listings

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

Transwiki to Wikibooks x86 assembly Wikibook]. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTMANUAL Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or transwiki and soft redirect – This article absolutely does not fail WP:LISTN; there are tens of books on x86 assembly and its instructions as various groups, and many of those books include this list or at least subsets of it. ~~But WP:NOTMANUAL applies, and the x86 assembly Wikibook could use it without controversy.~~ I actually agree with what JPxG said below; it probably doesn't fail WP:NOTMANUAL, because it's not directly instructing people on how to write a program. There are a lot of instructions, but that's why the splitting was suggested. Ovinus (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Transwiki makes sense to me. However, we should first determine a better target for x86 instruction set which currently redirects here. I'm not actually seeing a good list of notable X86 instructions elsewhere on Wikipedia. There's x86 and x86-64, neither of which include a list of instructions. x86 assembly language comes closest but doesn't seem to provide a list of a reasonable subset of notable instructions. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the incoming links will be a problem. I think the ideal method would be something like x86 instruction set architecture , which wouldn't be an exhaustive list per se, but a description of the registers/architecture and a summary of notable instruction sets (Streaming SIMD Extensions, 3DNow!, ...). The question then is how much that overlaps with x86 and x86-64. I really don't know, but I'm guessing x86 should focus on the history and broad design aspects, while x86 ISA would be a bit more detailed (but not to the point of violating WP:NOT). Ovinus (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per what I said at the other AfD for discontinued instructions. I do not see a deletion rationale, nor can I come up with one myself. The information in the article is cited quite thoroughly, the subject of x86 instructions is obviously notable from any reasonable computer science standpoint, and it's written neutrally for the purpose of informing the reader. Yes, the individual instructions are not notable: that's why they don't have individual articles. Individual sentences in an article don't have to themselves be notable. I do not really see how it is an "instruction manual"; the closest comparison I can see is that it's about a technical subject. Perhaps it is more detailed and boring than the average reader would find interesting, but Wikipedia is not a supermarket tabloid (in fact it's WP:NOTPAPER at all) so we do not have to worry about how many eyeballs an article brings in to justify its existence. jp×g 21:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the overwhelming majority of WP:NOTMANUAL pertains to the tone of writing that is to be used in articles; there are only a few limited examples (recipes, instructions, cheat codes, video game guides) that pertain to the actual subjects of articles themselves. It's not clear to me how this article is any of those things -- it's not guiding you through the process of writing code, providing tips, or carrying out any pedagogy at all, it's just a list of x86 opcodes (the fact that codes interpreted by the processor are called "instructions" is completely incidental and not what WP:NOTMANUAL is talking about). jp×g 21:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of undocumented x86 instructions.) Reading a bit deeper into how WP:NOTMANUAL is actually interpreted in practice, I agree. The article describes. We even have individual articles for certain instruction sets, and it would be nice to consolidate the instruction lists themselves. Ovinus (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @JPxG I wanted to give my reasoning for moving the lists of x86 instructions to wikibooks. First this isn't a database WP:NOTDATABASE, after reading some of the other posts on the other deletion discussions I think this is a better reasoning. Second two of x86 lists being proposed to move to wikibooks (undocumented and discontinued) only link to each other or and a couple "see also" links in a small number of articles. The x86 instruction listings article is a good split off the x86 article but it's really long and needs to be better organized which wikibooks can provide, it's had an article is too long tag since 2017 and no one has broken the article up or organized it. There's really no use for having just a list of instructions without context. For example compare the GNU assembly entry on wikibooks and wikipedia. When it comes to technical topics like this I don't really think the guidelines fit as well as they do in other subjects. Is x86 notable? Yes obviously. Is FMA3 notable? Probably. Is instruction VFMSUB231SD notable? Most likely not. I think moving this to wikibooks and then making an article about notable and x86 instructions for the x86 instructions and x86 instruction set pages (they are both redirects to this list) would be of a lot more use to the community. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An effort to split the instruction list into logical subarticles was started here and I think the proposed system is pretty good. Ovinus (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ooof I missed that completely sorry that’s on me. I’ll reach out and address this tomorrow morning. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:03, 5 July 2022 (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. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X86 instruction listings. Sandstein 08:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of discontinued x86 instructions

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks x86 assembly Wikibook. Fails WP:LISTN and as per @Fram: WP:NOTMANUAL. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see a deletion rationale, nor can I come up with one myself. The information in the article is cited quite thoroughly, and it's written neutrally for the purpose of informing the reader. It's not an "instruction manual"; the closest comparison I can see is that it's about a technical subject. Perhaps it is more detailed and boring than the average reader would find interesting, but Wikipedia is not a supermarket tabloid, so we do not have to worry about how many eyeballs an article brings in to justify its existence. jp×g 21:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Bransford

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

Lacks notability; her tenure on General Hospital was relatively short. Google search turned up various fan wikis but nothing substantive. Bgsu98 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya–Philippines relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. Relations are very limited, the level of trade is less than USD10 million. The fact that 300 Kenyans are estimated to be living in the Philippines is hardly adding to notability. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relations between these countries don't appear to be that significant on the part of either one. The fact that all the sources cited are primary governmental sources suggests a failure to satisfy WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrenda Gallien

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

Little independent coverage besides reporting on her prescription fraud case (which is conspicuously absent from the article; see [29], etc.). – Ploni (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, Medicine, and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and Arkansas. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domonique Bertolucci

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

Found no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Ploni (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Austria. Ploni (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2022 (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) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaagogi

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

Article with no notability and no ref. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2022 (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) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 12:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gichagiini

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

Single line article with no notability and no ref. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And I really feel compelled to ask you to search for these places in the locations described at WP:BEFORE (i.e. Google Books) before nominating them, if you did so you will see it is a place mentioned in the Kenya Gazette 27 Mar 1987 WP:GEOLAND has a very low bar, it just needs to be a populated place. CT55555 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 in Google Books, you will find any place you want to search. This is because of the government data and statistical journals. That doesn't support inclusion in Wiki. These are just spamming the Wiki. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2022 (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) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mwabila

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

Single line article with no notability and no ref. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only was it a populated place (i.e. WP:GEOLAND, it had a school. See Kenya Gazette - Aug 4, 2006 - Page 1749 CT55555 (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2022 (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) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mugome

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

Single line article with no notability and no ref. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is/was a place, so as per WP:GEOLAND is notable. See p 240 of: Kenya, Official Standard Names Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names. (1964). United States: Office of Geography. Please search google books before nominating places for deletion (see WP:BEFORE) CT55555 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verified place. No existing references doesn't mean it can't be sourced. Star Mississippi 03:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2022 (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) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mashanda

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

Single line article with no notability _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a place that is reported on by the geological survey of Kenya. It gets three mentions in their Report Issues 53-58 (search google books for "Mashanda, Kenya" to see for yourself) and therefore as a populated place, is notable as per WP:GEOLAND CT55555 (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2022 (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) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waldena

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

Single line article with no notability _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2022 (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) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yedi

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

Single line article with no notability _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2022 (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) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 12:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samicha

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

Single line article with no notability _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2022 (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) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 12:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makere ya Gwano

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

Why all single settlements in Kenya are listed? How it is mandatory? No notability and no ref at all.

I am listing some following single line Kenya settlements for AfD:

Note: A redirect is not the solution as the creator's edits are really a concern as the editor created such 1,667 single line articles.

_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the other articles articles proposed for deletion by NeverTry4Me. Without any indication of why they are notable, no significant text, and no sources, they should all go. If anyone has the energy to look at the other 1657 similar articles that should be done. Athel cb (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2022 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romelcia Phillip

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources [30] and [31] provide SIGCOV, while the source [32] mentions her winning a national award from her football federation, meeting criterion 1 in WP:ANYBIO. EternalNomad (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by EternalNomad. Giant Snowman 18:54, 30 June 2022 (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.