Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 22	March 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda Song

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:AUTHOR and pretty much everything the subject has tried her hand at. I've spent some considerable time looking into this person and her various careers, and drawn a complete blank. I've searched under her three aliases Belinda Song, Belinda Elkaim and Samey Fong – her Chinese name is 方心美, which I believe translates to Xin Mei Fang, and I've tried searching these names as well, but all five names produce nothing more than YouTube videos and streaming websites. She certainly was signed to the Asian division of Polygram Records (now part of Universal Music) as a teenager back in the 1980s, but I can't find any evidence that she was particularly successful – obviously sources from the time are likely to only exist as print copies of the Hong Kong newspapers, so I can't check that part of her career. Since she relaunched her music career in the 2010s all her releases have been independent, and the videos mostly premiered through her Instagram TV channel – the 2021 and 2022 releases in the article state "Universal Music Group", but that's not entirely accurate... she releases them via Spinnup, a company set up by Universal Music to distribute music uploaded by independent artists, and her low-budget music videos certainly don't appear to have been financed by a global music conglomerate. Similarly, her four novels have all been self-published, and the film was written and directed by Ms. Song herself, and she played the lead role in it. Kudos to Ms. Song for her entrepreneurial efforts, but I don't see anything that makes her notable for a Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need significant coverage of someone created by others to justify an article on someone, and that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's detailed and well-researched rationale and per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I searched for sources using the terms "Belinda Song", "Belinda Elkaim", and "Samey Fong", and for her Chinese name "方心美" and could not find coverage in any reliable sources about her. She does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice breakdown by nom. Delete per that rationale. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 28 March 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. Although there is virtually no discussion, the "delete" argument is compelling: the article is sourced only to the party's founder's website, making it fail the core policy WP:V - i.e., readers can't verify what the article says in independent reliable sources. Sandstein 07:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motherland Party (Hungary)

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

Doesn't seem notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Article about a Hungarian political party, sourced solely to the website of the founder. Tagged for more sources since 2017. Deleted under both names on huwiki (deletion discussion from 2014, deletion discussion from January 2022). I don't think they are notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, and Politics. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This minor party was able to set up national list in the 2014 national election and also took part in the 2014 EP election, meeting the conditions for departure (collecting signatures). It received c. 0.5% in both elections (6th place and 7th place, respectively). Although the article is poorly sourced, this extra-parliamentary party is notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:55, 23 March 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Magnotta

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

clearly not notable enough, sourcing lacking, status as "internet celebrity" not borne out. Acous mana 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Random Internet meme, I would say. Fails WP:NBIO. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not a fan of Wikipedia becoming a repository for memes, but the sourcing is certainly impressive. The Italian version lists obituaries in la Repubblica, Il Messaggero, and il Centro as well as to continuing coverage before his death. Atchom (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE nomination, the subject passed GNG at the time of the first nomination and still passes GNG today. In the meanwhile he was also the subject of a graphic novel (new sources covering both the subject and the graphic novel include GQ [1], la Repubblica [2], Leggo [3]). This is a very recent article about him. As a side note, calling him a meme is somewhat inaccurate for someone who emerged in the 1980s, when the word meme had not yet been coined. Cavarrone 10:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The word "meme" was introduced in Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene, published in 1976. However, it did not yet have its usual modern sense in the 1980s. Gildir (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it may be hard for people outside of Italy to grasp the significance. I don't think this should be called a "meme" or an "internet phenomenon". It really speaks to much older traditions, which is obvious from the dedication of a song about "Piero" - the Italian "sad sack" character who always loses but keeps going. Magnotta clearly became a symbol in that culture. Note: many of the links (e.g. Repubblica) give me a 404, so if someone has access to those it would be good to archive them, or at least give a full citation. Lamona (talk) 15:11, 25 March 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 against keeping. There is no consensus about a redirect, which means that a redirect may be created and then challenged by any editor. Sandstein 06:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golf del Sur

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

Not notable golf course. Article reads almost like an advertisement. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source an article solely to the advertising blurb on the company WWW sites and a tourism brochure, which is the case here, and an advertisement is what one gets. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you in favor of deletion? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Firstly, AFD is not cleanup. Second, GDS has hosted the European Tour four times, so it's reasonably likely that sources exist, but it's tough to find them in the ocean of holiday sites and directory listings (I remember there was a good sized article in one of the golf magazines about 25–30 years ago!). Finally, per WP:ATD, a merge and redirect to San Miguel de Abona, the municipality in which it is located, is the best course of action if sources cannot be unearthed at this time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Do not merge/redirect; articles about municipalities do not routinely contain content about random golf courses, and it would not be a relevant search term. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Articles about municipalities often contain information about developments, sports facilities, etc.; indeed in this case, GdS is already mentioned there; and page view statistics suggest there is value in providing a redirect. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:53, 23 March 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 14:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sewa Dynasty

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

A legendary dynasty that fails WP:GNG. Trivial mentions in census documents as part of folklore. Redirect to History of Balochistan. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ref #1 in the article is a book, not a census document as claimed by the nom and appears to have more than a passing mention, also claimed by the nom. There is more than a passing mention in other books such as Comprehensive Balochistan General Knowledge. If the article can't be expanded beyond what we currently have, then find somewhere to merge it to. Legends and myths from ancient times should be part of the foundations of any general encyclopaedia. SpinningSpark 19:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A book on "general knowledge" aimed at civil services aspirants is not a reliable source for topics of ancient history. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a problem if mythology actually was ancient history. SpinningSpark 14:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect though there is little to merge to Sibi, where there is a section on history. Even if this is solely based on tradition, there is no harm in including it in WP, though with suitable qualifying comments on the reliability of the information. However any article should be about the polity ruled, not about the ruling dynasty. This would not apply if the area ruled was a handful of villages and/or subject to the suzerainty of a larger state. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, we do not have any material to merge apart from a single line even if we agree to use highly questionable sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:51, 23 March 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!} 23:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Duncan (businessman)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Could not find significant indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability and certainly cannot be inherited from the company he is associated with. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any RS via Google or Newsbank (there are several passing mentions of him as co-owner of the Western Sydney Wanderers; and more recently as Sunshine Coast Wanderers president (many of which are in local newspapers eg Sunshine Coast Daily (Maroochydore)). Of the 3 sources that are currently on the page, the AFR article might pass for RS; the SMH article is really just a routine passing mention in an article otherwise focused around the Parramatta Eels; and I couldn't find the Daily Telegraph article, although presumably similar articles from June 2014 (that I could access) only mention Duncan in passing. In summary from my research: fails WP:GNG; WP:BASIC; WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing significant to establish notability as per BIO HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 30 March 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Wain

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Might be notable one day, but not yet. Edwardx (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate any substantial coverage of this individual. This is unsurprising given he is only 14. AusLondonder (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely WP:TOOSOON. Kid has taken step 1, and it's a small step. He may or may not be notable in the future. Let's wait and see. Lamona (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of why a member of youth parliament is notable or important, no indication of what he's doing there, nothing to work with here. If his political career continues into a more significant role, then an article would be appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth parliaments are not bodies that confer an WP:NPOL pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:06, 30 March 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 12:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome H. Joyce

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

No clear indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the short newspaper reports are not enough to show actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ In addition to the current references from the NYT and Baltimore Sun, I have so far found this mention from a Magazine named "Aeronautics" and this from a publication by the Historical Society of Baltimore County. ~~I'm currently leaning towards a weak keep.~~ Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot of hits on Newspaper archive. Here's a 1906 Baltimore Sun article chock full of quotes from people praising his planning proposal for an exposition, a 1914 article from the Frederick News-Post about he and Baltimore's mayor, James H. Preston, being criticized by the chair of some event committee, and this Washington Times article about being elected president of the National Hotel Men's Benefit Association. The Sun also reported on a banquet honoring Joyce in 1911. It looks Joyce had a significant role in Baltimore's social & political scene in the early 1900's. GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with thanks to GPL93 for finding the new sources, seems to be notable. I found something in JSTOR from the American Hotel Assoc in 1918, not sure what it is exactly, I don't think it adds to the notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again thanks to GPL93. The article needs work, and I suggest storing the found links on the talk page to support improving that page. Lamona (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to build out the article and it now has 8 refs, although I do not think 2 of them are notability lending, and have yet to get to the aviation coverage which is quite extensive. I am going to ping pepperbeast & Johnpacklambert to see if these additions change their votes. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're doing a sterling job, and I withdraw my delete vote. Not, I think, that it makes any difference at this point. Great work. PepperBeast (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by GPL93, notability has been established. Brian O'Conner 06:31, 26 March 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 clear that the sourcing does not meet the requirements. Star Mississippi 01:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Avin

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

Seems like a paid post because almost all the cited sources are press releases. Just one interview in VOA which is a primary source and doesn't count towards notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:THREE. Govind Ghoshal (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)— Govind Ghoshal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist is considered significant for me, because he specializes in Persian folk music and has collaborated on many projects with very notable people. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete – the sources cited are indeed almost exclusively press releases/advertising, and I was unable to identify any genuinely independent coverage in reliable sources. Avin does not seem to meet either WP:NMUSIC or the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update. There are also more WP:RS that were not used in the article. Meets WP:SIGCOV. Aramehetemadi (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found sources that appear to be new by date of publication, and there are likely to be more new ones (including in Persian) to complement the existing sources in the article. I think the nomination for deletion is too hasty. A primary source like the Voice of America cannot be considered a reason for deletion. [4]. Flowingmind (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC) — Flowingmind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Stay with me. Because there is evidence and sources that show that he collaborates with Ms. Googoosh, who is one of the most famous female singers from Iran, and has gained fame for her. Amir ghpro (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Amir ghpro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per Extraordinary Writ. Almost all of the sources are press releases. 2001:8003:7D11:6600:A4F2:7BF0:9E1E:F729 (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC) — User:2001:8003:7D11:6600:A4F2:7BF0:9E1E:F729 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment – several of the above keep !voters claim that they have found sources, but they do not list them. Deletion discussions are not a vote, and "merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". Since the only sources that I can find are press releases and a non-independent interview, I stand by my delete !vote. I would encourage the closer to look at the strength of the arguments here, as well as the fact that this discussion may have been impacted by sockpuppetry, canvassing, and/or single-purpose accounts. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found sources in Farsi [5], [6],[7] articles and interviews/performances [8] he presented in global projects [9], [10] . Aramehetemadi (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[11] is a non-independent interview; [12] is unreliable and not significant coverage (it's just a site to download his music); [13] appears to be a duplicate of the first source (and thus still a non-independent interview); [14] is an advertisement for a concert; [15] is a textbook trivial mention that names "Arash Avin from Iran" in a long list of people who participated in an event; [16] is a two-sentence passing mention. Respectfully, none of these sources count as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for purposes of the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 29 March 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. Star Mississippi 14:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mathis

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

A producer notable because of one controversial film (of which he was an associate producer) and I think the article for the movie is sufficient. References are either passing mentions, don't mention him at all or are dead links. As a whole, not a notable career as an activist, film producer, DJ or media consultant, worthy of his own article on Wikipedia. When you do a search for him, you will come across a more famous Mark Mathis, a meteorologist, who has more coverage online. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD for this page title was for the more famous meteorologist, not this Mark Mathis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Impeccable timing, because Mark Mathis (meteorologist) just got deleted after I prodded it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a coincidence, I deleted that PROD'd article and stumbled upon this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BASIC. Considered a redirect to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but the subject of the article doesn't even appear to be the most famous Mark Mathis and as he was just an associate producer for the movie, it would be more confusing than helpful. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:52, 31 March 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 Baker McKenzie. I don't see further input forthcoming and as Qwaiiplayer said, reasonable ATD. History remains under the redirect if sourcing is forthcoming and he's worth spinning out down the line Star Mississippi 14:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo C. Leite

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

I find very little that indicates that the subject is notable. It is usually easy to find substantive RS coverage of people who run major companies (e.g. interviews and puff pieces in the press), but there is nothing on this person. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, Brazil, and Uruguay. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards a move to draft, to give further time for researching the question, but as it stands I do not think this adds up to encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 18:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't able to find significant references. 182.188.205.44 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baker McKenzie. Does not appear to have enough significant coverage for a stand alone article, but he was the chairman of a notable company so a redirect to that company could be a reasonable WP:ATD-R. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:57, 31 March 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.
Interpreted consensus:

It is not ready for mainspace
It may or may not be notable. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meshroom

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

Thought this felt a bit WP:PROMO, but the lack of sources doesn't help. When I did a google search I see a documentation and downloads for it. I don't see reviews or how this passes basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

It was never my intention to fully write this article. I don't know enough about the program(!), but felt it should be included here. Here are some links that might help with its inclusion (from here):

It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.

e.g.

- Virginia Tech

- University of Oxford

- maastricht university suggests it is part of an MA course

- University of Maryland (not sure what purpose this blog indicates)

- University of Nottingham (ditto)

It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.

e.g.

- Comparative Analysis of Open-Source and Commercial Photogrammetry Software for Cultural Heritage conference paper

- University of Queensland (review/comparison)

used for making music videos

- Everything Everything - In Birdsong

I can do some more digging if needed

Pluke (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- What the article needs is improvement, not more digging. Independent sources, a neutral style and tone is necessary. The Banner talk 10:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Completely agree, but I think we need to dismiss the AfD before we spend too much effort on this. The above list should serve as a good starting point to improve things. Pluke (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Not really. You made a low quality article as a way to deflect this discussion. Now it is up to you to bring the article up to standard before an admin comes with the decision. The Banner talk 11:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure that's how things work around here. I've not done much serious editing for a very long time, but it used to be that articles can be created as stubs for other people to improve on. If this has changed, please point me to the policy. I'm not trying to deflect the discussion, I asked you for the policy you were referring to for inclusion on the list you are maintaining, you appear to have your own criteria, which I'm not wanting to get into a huge argument about as you're clearly doing a good job of maintaining the list. I met your criteria, created a stub, have now pulled together a load of potential sources to improve the article. As I noted in the other discussion the question here was about he notability of the software product, as evidenced by this AfD, not about it having a page. There is no obligation for me to do anything, this site generally runs on good will, I hope to come back to this when I have a little more time. Pluke (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Throw something over the fence and others can do the work??? But in the present state, the article will most likely not survive. The Banner talk 16:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't have time right now to convert the multiple sources I have provided above into a full article. Wiki writing, for me at least, is an iterative process, and if you note what I've said, I'm intending on working on this article, just not now. If you think that the article should be deleted, please make the case here, this is what this page is for. I believe that I've provided enough evidence for this article to survive as a stub, which will hopefully be worked on by me and others. Pluke (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I commend Pluke's effort, to which I will add [17] as evidence that databases of scientific papers should be searched before the article can be deleted. I will note that the Notability (software) essay linked is not official policy. Despite this, and the article's current lacking state, I believe it can be improved to a suitably encyclopedic state and has a sufficient claim to notability, so deletion is not the solution. Toadspike (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion on available sourcing will help determine whether this has viability as an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to allow Pluke and others the time to work on it. It's not in shape for mainspace right now, but believe it could be brought into compliance with more time than an AfD provides. Star Mississippi 01:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Star Mississippi. Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable would be my vote, but I have no problem with Draftify - we can afford the electrons. Springnuts (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the more complete draft article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AliceVision_Meshroom

As well as articles in other languages: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/AliceVision_Meshroom, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/AliceVision_Meshroom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.198.18.33 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as a redirect)- there is a much better version of this topic linked above and here. The Meshroom page will then redirect to the more complete page. Pluke (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the four times rejected draft?? The Banner talk 22:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's due another review as it has had several updates since the last one, from what I can see. Rather than drag on this AfD, maybe efforts should be put into reviewing the draft article? Pluke (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace redirect to a draft? That won’t work. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've used this software before (and it works well). However, during this time I would have expected the page to continue to expand in the past 30 days. However, I would see Draft:AliceVision Meshroom being a replacement, as it's been translated from the italian/french versions. SWinxy (talk) 23:10, 30 March 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 Ada Kaleh. Sandstein 07:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bego Turks

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

A procedural nomination after a recent RfD. This is an article about the Turkish-speaking inhabitants of the island of Ada Kaleh (that article currently has some content on "Bego" Turks, which may need attention depending on the findings of this discussion. Myself, I'm neutral. Copying the comments from the RfD:

Made up name. "Bego Turks" only gives Wikipedia-related results and "Bego Türkleri" gives 0. Super Ψ Dro 13:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In the source who is written in German, there is given the name Bego Turks for the Inhabitans.

https://www.academia.edu/23622641/Mustafa_Bego_t%C3%BCrkischer_Nargileh_Raucher_und_ungarischer_Nationalheld_Nationale_Aneignung_und_internationale_Vermarktung_der_Insel_Ada_Kaleh

called Bego Turks Nalanidil (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Nalanidil, can you give the page where this name is said? By the way, if only one single source talks about this term, the information becomes doubtful. Super Ψ Dro 18:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a PDF, I will scroll down it, but yes i understand what you mean, this is why i was confused too, the majority sources said they are turks, only one source said they are of mixed background

I think we can deleted the article then. Nalanidil (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

– Uanfala (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Romania, Serbia, and Turkey. – Uanfala (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — not really covered by sources, and any useful content can be integrated into Ada Kaleh. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are enough sources, but please delete the Article, My Godness...before so much nonsense comments are given about...Thanks Nalanidil (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mustafa Bego was an inhabitant of Ada Kaleh who had a minor historical role [18]. Apart from the first sentence, the rest of the article is all nicked from Ada Kaleh. None of the sources seems to confirm the notion of "Bego Turks" for the inhabitants, so the article is OR at best and a hoax at worst. No such user (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing is strange, while for every Turkish Group from Greece, like Western Thrace, Dodecanes, Cretian etc, they have an own Page, but for Turks from Ada Kaleh is not ok to have there own Page? don't call it a hoax, in the German pdf, who describes Bego Mustafa's Life and the Life of the Turkish inhabitants etc., it is explain why Bego's nickname was transferred to the entire population. Instead for deleting, the name can be changend in Turks of Ada Kaleh Thanks. Nalanidil (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's the full bibliographical info for Blasen's charming paper: https://spiegelungen.net/multikulturelles-banat-i, the URL for the PDF is given above in the copied thread. My take on this is redirect to Ada Kaleh or merge into Turks in Romania. Blasen's paper only gives anecdotical evidence for the use of the term "Bego Turks" and does use not it himself when talking about the Turkish inhabitants of Ada Kaleh. He mentions on p. 18 a picture postcard from 1905 with an image of Mustafa Bego with the text "Begó-Türke". Mustafa Bego is thus (obviously erroneously) called a "Bego Turk". Blasen's comment: "Begos Beiname wird so zum Ethnikon einer türkischen Volksgruppe" ('Bego's nickname thus becomes an ethnonym for a Turkish [sub-]subethnic group'). This passing mention of "Bego Turk(s)" (which is most likely a spurious term coined by the publisher of a picture postcard) is not even the ghost of WP:SIGCOV that is necessary for a standalone article. –Austronesier (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well then a standalone Article with the name Turks from Ada Kaleh and not Bego Turks.

As you can see the Turkish groups from Greece have ALL there own Page, here have a Look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Greece

The Turks of Ada Kaleh is not to compare with Turkish-Tatarian-Muslim Roma groups from Dobruja in Romania. The History and Background is absolutly different. Nalanidil (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a Look, why i think that the Turks from Ada Kaleh should be an own Page, because they are different Theorys about there Ethnicity.

This is in German language, under caroline insel, you can read that the inhabitants was Muslims from all part of the ottoman empire who spoke an ottoman turkish as language. see: https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/wissen/geschichte/545006-Die-vergessene-Insel-des-Islam.html

So this meant, muslims from different ethnicity of the ottoman empire live in this island, a similar source in english said, this turkish Islanders was a mix of arabs, albanians, kurd and turks see: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/ada-kaleh-an-ottoman-atlantis-on-the-danube/

yet in this sources it is said of turks only: https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2016/01/22/ada-kaleh-a-turkish-island-in-the-danube-river, https://www.thewhitereview.org/feature/ada-kaleh-the-story-of-an-island/

and https://historyofyesterday.com/the-turkish-island-that-the-romanian-communists-sank-into-the-danube-69570222c06e?gi=eae818ca72e7, https://patrickleighfermor.org/2012/09/22/on-the-island-of-ada-kaleh-on-the-danube/ Nalanidil (talk) 18:38, 25 March 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!} 22:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Leaf Music

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

Non-notable record label. Distributor is a redlink. Company received a Canadian Country Music Award nomination in 2006, but it was only a nomination for a very small organization. Zero sourcing found, nor do any notable acts seem to have been signed as there are zero inbound links. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The CCMA award might make them notable, but we'd need sources. I can't find any in the GNews or Newspapers section, would have to go on a deep dive in probably something like the Toronto Star or other major Canadian newspaper archives from 2006 or 2007 to see what they have. Leaning delete unless we can dig up sources. Oaktree b (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Newspapers.com only yielded a couple CCMA award listings where they were one of many entrants. World Radio History, which has music magazines from all over the world, gave no results. Neither did Google Books. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the scant sources, likely nothing more than a footnote in Canadian music history then. Could perhaps redirect to the CCMA Awards. I feel like there's a story to be told here, if any budding journalists are watching this... Nothing notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they had three nominations for the CCMAs over several different years, from the CCMA website, but did not win, so. I can't find any indication of the artists they published, though there are some indications they were involved with the second album from George Canyon before he had his breakout a few years later. I can't find any indication of them being significant past those - must have been something there at one time, maybe, but not now. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 28 March 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. After a rewrite by Uncle G, who did the right thing (improving the article themselves) after first doing the wrong thing (being incivil to others). Sandstein 06:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost train (folklore)

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

I can't find evidence that this goes beyond fictional cliche and into an actual aspect of folklore worth mentioning. The sources used to cite it to "folklore" are shaky at best. The rest is just a pop-culture list full of cruft and WP:OR. Wikipedia is not TVTropes, there is already a page for that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I found, at least, Ron Brown, Rails Across the Prairies: The Railway Heritage of Canada’s Prairie Provinces (2012), p. 142: "The strange story of a ghost train has been told many times. The site where it occurs is a former railway crossing along a side road around eight kilometres north of the town". That one is from Saskatchewan. Folkloric accounts like these are buried deeply under pop culture references, but I think there is enough to support the contention that this is a notable concept in folklore. BD2412 T 20:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for lack of substantial coverage in multiple sources. Springnuts (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Springnuts Take a look at the article again, totally rewritten. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - certainly improved, with one excellent source for WP:GNG. We need multiple sources however: so which is the second source you would say shows substantial coverage? Springnuts (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems from this request to be spoon fed the sources that you have not looked for yourself. The tanuki/fox versus the steam train tale is very well documented, even to being in an entry in another encyclopaedia. Try looking for sources yourself on that and other phantom train folklore. Tell us what you come up with and where you looked, like BD2412 did. Only then will you be able to legitimately say whether or not sources exist. AFD is not for one person to do all the work and everyone else to expect to be spoon fed. The process requires multiple people because it requires multiple people to double check. If you are not bothering to check for yourself before making assertions about what sources exist, as you just did twice, you aren't putting the process and deletion policy into action. Policy is clear that the criterion is whether sources exist to build an article, and that attempts to find them have been made. Show that you are putting some effort in. The encyclopaedia is easy to find, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, be polite and AGF. I was inviting you to clarify the case you believe exists for ”keep”. Personal attacks aren’t the way to do that. Springnuts (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. You were asking for sources without putting one single whit of effort into looking for them, per policy, and reporting what you found, yourself. AFD isn't helped by people who just don't do that, and that's not a personal attack, it's a statement of what you should be doing and clearly are not. Put the effort in. If there's no sources, show that you looked. If there's one source and you want others, lift a finger to see whether there are. We are not here to do this work for you, and AFD, which relies on multiple people cross-checking, is not served by what you are doing. Uncle G (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G: may I invite you to strike through or delete your incivility. Springnuts (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per BD2412.★Trekker (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ due to this being a poorly referenced listcruft BUT this totally has the potential to be a proper, prose-based article. I would be very surprised if sources didn't exist. So this can be rescued, but such a rescue would necessitate rewriting this from scratch (hence, my delete vote, per WP:TNT). Do ping me if this is going to be rewritten and I'll reconsider my vote. Unfortunately, my quick BEFORE failed to find anything substantial outside some discussion here that looks reliable but is gutted by Google Books partial view (and I do acknowledge a good start by BD2412 above). PS. I used the query for "phantom train" to look for more sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Ps. Changing to keep, totally rewritten by Uncle G (thank you). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This grew in exactly the way described at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. It was split from ghost train in 2006 (Special:Diff/79143568 and Special:Diff/79143602), and editors piled on the mentions on television and in films in the hopes that an article about the folklore of ghost trains would magically arise. Both BD2412 and Piotrus are right, it seems. Uncle G (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G Another example that ironically, collaborative article writing is hard and can often produce a total mess that one person has to clean up, eh? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article writing is sometimes hard, full stop. ☺ In this case, it is sorting the wheat from the chaff when it comes to sources on American folklore. Uncle G (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per BD2412. Dimadick (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On reflection I think the weakness here is in the breadth of the article topic. Tanuki versus steam trains seems to lack the multiple sources to keep as a standalone article. But Ghost train (folklore) as a topic seems to be a piece of WP:OR - a synthesis of the various individual ghost trains referenced. I could not find this broad topic on Google scholar - but isn’t easy to look up in as the term is used of real trains run empty, of abandoned railway lines, and within Mathematics and computing. So I’d still go for a merge of noteworthy material into Tanuki and possibly some others Springnuts (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I agree that it is a WP:SYNTH of somewhat unrelated topics linked together by the writers of the article itself. Anything that talks about "ghost trains" as a whole is a different story, but as far as I can tell it is not a "scholarly" concept and just a trope recognized by fans. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:24, 28 March 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!} 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hubwoo

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

The subject of the article is a minor company, that never did anything of note, and has not existed for 7 years. SpadeParcelSmith (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and France. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG. Springnuts (talk) 21:58, 23 March 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. Imported arguments put aside, no evidence has come that this person is notable as defined by the English language Wikipedia due to questions about the independence and reliability of the sourcing available. Star Mississippi 14:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Osepashvili

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

Can't see notability, fails WP:GNG. Mehman 97 19:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Georgia (country). CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Most sources are from a government database. No significant news coverage I was able to find. If someone knows Georgian though, they could find more reliable sources. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Government sources are the most reliable and protected sources. But in these links there are at least 5 non-governmental sources and also links of an authoritative Georgian public broadcaster. Also in the links are a number of independent and reputable TV channels and one newspaper. Also, one of the authoritative sources is the Biographical Lexicon of the National Library of Georgia, which is a structure of the Parliament of Georgia. As for free information on the Internet, there is a lot of it on the Internet. reference to დავით ოსეფაშვილი
  1. https://www.google.com/search?q=%E1%83%93%E1%83%90%E1%83%95%E1%83%98%E1%83%97+%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A1%E1%83%94%E1%83%A4%E1%83%90%E1%83%A8%E1%83%95%E1%83%98%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
  2. https://www.google.com/search?q=%E1%83%93%E1%83%90%E1%83%95%E1%83%98%E1%83%97+%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A1%E1%83%94%E1%83%A4%E1%83%90%E1%83%A8%E1%83%95%E1%83%98%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjY8sKAqd_2AhVtQ_EDHZkzCpkQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1242&bih=577&dpr=1.1 Mileniumik (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Biographical Lexicon of the National Library of Georgia is not reliable at all, people write about themselves and send it to the library, and they just put it out. And how is it a reliable source? Even on the pages of the library is not given a source of information. Mehman 97 17:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, the Georgian Wikipedia is biased against such an authoritative source as the Biographical Dictionary of Georgia. I think that your arguments are not confirmed by anything, and if I were in their place, I would definitely go to court, since you will discredit the body that is accountable to the Parliament of Georgia. Personally, I think that you see your competitor in the lexicon. Mileniumik (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, the Georgian Wikipedia has become a breeding ground for politically engaged people, which is contrary to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia. A lot of people in Georgia are dissatisfied and tired of you and your biased attitude towards articles. You block all those who didn't like you and those who dared to tell the truth. You have only one weapon - deleting articles and blocking users. I want everyone to know that the Georgian Wikipedia was seized by a group of like-minded people who have their own personal interests, including financial ones. Mileniumik (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are so vindictive that after deleting and blocking users on the Georgian Wikipedia, you do not stop there and look for other articles in other languages to delete them. This is your true essence, which directly contradicts the letter and spirit of Wikipedia. People like that shouldn't run Wikipedia. Mileniumik (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, let's start with the fact that doubting the seriousness of government websites is a curious story, and secondly, I sincerely wonder why the article hit here? There are links from several fully secured government websites, also from the biographical dictionary of Georgia, where you can't see biographies of "random" people. Also with a few words about notability, maybe it's funny to have any questions seriously about that, when we are talking about standards, check this project, there are too many biographies of several people who are not really notable, at first clean them and talk then. You are saying that humans without "notability" can be on governmental websites and be the regular part of lives on television? If you will google his name in Georgian, you will find too many links of his interviews or his tv lives. And also ecxept of governmental website links, there is the link to Radio Liberty, maybe we don't have any questions about the reputation of Radio Liberty. And also there is one link, where you can see his status in government in 2004. https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/download/35266/0/ge/doc ----ჯეო4WIKI^{Message Me}_{Contributions} 16:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already written above why the Biographical Lexicon of the National Library of Georgia isn't a reliable source, because of this, the Georgian Wikipedia partially forbade blindly indicating it as a source and taking information from there. Mehman 97 17:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research.--გიო ოქრო 13:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As for you, you are a politically biased representative of the Georgian Wikipedia, who does not accept other and alien political worldviews, which, among other things, you have repeatedly removed the biography of David Osepashvili from the Georgian Wikipedia. I wrote about this in that discussion, because of which you deleted my comment where it was mentioned and then blocked me for an indefinite time in the Georgian Wikipedia. Mileniumik (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You even deleted information and booklets about your party affiliation on your page, when I gave you a remark about this. Does your party affiliation and engagement give you the right to resolve Wikipedia issues in a politically biased way? You are not an neutral and very biased member of the Georgian Wikipedia, who, for political reasons, deletes pages that are objectionable to you and blocks those whose views are unacceptable to you. Mileniumik (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please not import disagreements from another Wikipedia and concentrate on whether this person passes our notability guidelines? I'm especially interested in whether the Biographical Dictionary of Georgia can be said to be reliable. This page, especially the comment near the bottom, "we need only to contact with you if we have any questions or need to refine the data", would appear to indicate that in most cases it simply prints whatever people send it. Does anyone have any evidence that contradicts this? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The Biographical Lexicon of Georgia is a government organization and applies all the preferences that are available to it. The lexicon domain itself is located on the gov domain. which gives him a reliable status and a trusted source of information. As far as I know, the organization has direct access to the Georgian archival and many other resources (which Wikipedia does not have). through these resources, he checks most of the information that is sent to her and after that, a decision is made to publish a biography. The Biographical Lexicon itself is located in the Georgian Wikipedia, and if this organization does not have trust, why then does the Georgian Wikipedia remove the information about the lexicon as a fake page?
  - Biographical Lexicon on Wikipedia: https://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%A1%E1%83%90%E1%83%A5%E1%83%90%E1%83%A0%E1%+83%97%E1%83%95%E1%83%94%E1%83%9A%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A1_%E1%83%91%E1%83%98%E1%83%+9D%E1%83%92%E1%83%A0%E1%83%90%E1%83%A4%E1%83%98%E1%83%A3%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98_%+E1%83%9A%E1%83%94%E1%83%A5%E1%83%A1%E1%83%98%E1%83%99%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9C%E1%+83%98 Mileniumik (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Biographical Lexicon on Wikipedia: https://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%A1%E1%83%90%E1%83%A5%E1%83%90%E1%83%A0%E1%83%97%E1%83%95%E1%83%94%E1%83%9A%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A1_%E1%83%91%E1%83%98%E1%83%9D%E1%83%92%E1%83%A0%E1%83%90%E1%83%A4%E1%83%98%E1%83%A3%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98_%E1%83%9A%E1%83%94%E1%83%A5%E1%83%A1%E1%83%98%E1%83%99%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9C%E1%83%98 (ka:საქართველოს_ბიოგრაფიული_ლექსიკონი) Mileniumik (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The Georgian version of the lexicon explicitly states that: A biography can be offered by any person who has published an article. When filling out or editing a resume, please note that all proposals will be checked!
- Link: http://www.nplg.gov.ge/bios/ka/suggest.html Mileniumik (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evidence please, not opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of Georgian politicians and media people are in the Georgian Wikipedia, who provide a link to the Georgian biographical lexicon, which does not become an obstacle for them to publish their articles. There are dozens, hundreds, and hundreds of such examples. It turns out that in most cases the lexicon works. And double standards are unacceptable, which guide the Georgian Wikipedia. Mileniumik (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is very simple! The Georgian Wikipedia blocked me and deleted my comments on their site, they also deleted the article for personal and political reasons. They are now trying to get you to remove my article from other language wikipedias. I would like foreign representatives of the English Wikipedia to know that this is direct discrimination and persecution of me by those who have great power in the vastness of Wikipedia. I ask for your help and support. Mileniumik (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You will get support in this discussion if you show evidence that this article should be kept on the English Wikipedia. Anything that happens on another language Wikipedia is the concern of that Wikipedia, or in extremis of meta or the Wikimedia Foundation. We have no control here over what happens on the Georgian Wikipedia, so there is no point in your going on about how badly you have been treated there. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your feedback. As for the article, it is supported by many resources and links, which certifies the accuracy of information about David Osepashvili.
    - The article presents the following certifying facts from:
      1. Biography from the Biographical Dictionary of the National Parliament of Georgia.
      2. Several interviews and live broadcasts from the Georgian Public Broadcaster.
      3. Interview from the news program of TV company "Rustavi 2".
      4. Debate on TV channel "Obieqtivi".
      5. Interview in the newspaper "qronikaplus".
      6. Ballating in the deputies of the Parliament of Georgia and debates in TV programs. (Radio Liberty, TV Rustavi 2)
      7. Google link for დავით ოსეფაშვილი
      8. Facebook profile of David Osepashvili where he has 29,000 subscribers and active people: https://www.facebook.com/d.osephashvili
    - That's all I can provide a respected audience, and the rest is up to you. Mileniumik (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Debates and interviews and the subject's Facebook autobiography are not fact-checked independent sources; a Google link isn't a source at all. You have one biographical source, and the argument above is that it's shaky because there's no editorial control and it is tantamount to autobiography. Find more independent, reliable, in-depth sources. Where is this person's life and works documented other than the subject writing/speaking/submitting autobiographes about xyrself? Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure what other sources you need? Those authoritative sources that are presented are real and trustworthy sources that cannot be disputed. You have no real facts that these sources are invalid. Your skepticism is your personal opinion and I have nothing more to add to all of the above. Mileniumik (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Apparently you didn't fully read the comments above. It would be nice if you re-read them carefully. I repeat that distrust of the Georgian Biographical lexicon is a distrust of the national parliament of Georgia and its structure. It is a pity that you give yourself the right to claim that this resource is unreliable. You don’t even know what principles this structure works on, but you give yourself the right to be ashamed of the work of this authoritative body. Your arguments are completely invalid. Mileniumik (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As for information from Google, it was mentioned above that information about a given person is not searched for in Google. It would be good if you read the comments carefully and not selectively, then the meaning and essence of the question will be more clear to you. Mileniumik (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The National Parliamentary Library of Georgia is the main scientific library of Georgia, preserving printed editions published in Georgia and important scientific and universal publications and other documents of foreign countries, as well as the cultural and methodological centre of national bibliography, information, scientific research and the coordinator of librarianship in the country together with the Ministry of Culture and Monuments Protection of Georgia. The National Library is accountable to the Parliament of Georgia because of its exceptional national significance.
        
        Link: https://www.nplg.gov.ge/eng/General_Information Mileniumik (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all, as of March 19-25, the article has 307 views in the English Wikipedia alone, after which to say that there is no demand for the article is nonsense. To argue that an article should not exist is to first and foremost underscore the attitude of a number of editors towards the project, some of you have declared war on the article, which is secondly absurd, this project is much more developed in Georgian and you can not believe the article has never been seen by an English Wikipedia editor. Which could mark it as deleted if it deemed it necessary. What is happening now is just comical.----ჯეო4WIKI^{Message Me}_{Contributions} 12:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your argument about demand is foolish a straw man, because only you even raise that argument (and 307 views could have come from this discussion alone). As Phil Bridger says, you need to show that, per Project:deletion policy and per things like our Project:Notability criteria, multiple in-depth independent reliable sources exist. All of this straw man stuff and attempts to paint everyone else as "declaring war" and other such hyperbolic rubbish, will have no effect at all. At the moment there's only one source, with an argument that it is neither reliable nor independent. Per Project:deletion policy that's a delete; and that's where this will go unless you pull your socks up and start making proper arguments instead of this ludicrous ad hominem. Find sources; discuss them. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent a complaint to Wikimedia about Mehman Ibragimov and I'm waiting for a response from them. The text of the complaint is below:
    
    I would like to inform you about the obscene behavior and inappropriate actions of Mehman Ibragimov, Chair of Board, Wikimedia UG Georgia, Member, Affiliations Committee, which Blocks the "Mileniumic" user and deletes David Osepashvili's pages in Georgian, Azerbaijani, English, Turkish and other languages. Ibragimov's motivation is political, since his and his political positions in Georgia do not match. He maliciously and unlawfully uses the levers given to him as the chairman of the Georgian Wikipedia and also a member of the board of Wikimedia. I ask you to revise his illegal actions and cancel all his actions related to the removal of David Osepashvili's pages in Georgian, English and other languages. Ibragimov directly comes into conflict with the Georgian Biographical Dictionary of Georgia, which is subordinate to the Georgian National Parliament and also discredits the State institutions of Georgia, as well as with the Georgian government, with which he has very bad relations. Mileniumik (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to send messages to whoever you please, but, as far as this discussion is concerned, we still need to see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Even if the Biographical Dictionary is considered to be independent and reliable (a big "if") then it is still just one source. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already been presented with all the sources for this article and a complete list of resources. We have nothing more to provide and make up stories, and we cannot and will not do so. Mileniumik (talk) 12:51, 30 March 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 state Green Parties in the United States. Less Unless (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Delaware

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

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 19:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Delaware. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state Green Parties in the United States Reywas92^Talk 20:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to be based on sources that are indepdent of the organization, secondary, and provide indepth coverage. None of the sources here are such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state Green Parties in the United States. Not independently notable of the Green Party of the United States but redirecting to the list is a reasonable WP:ATD-R. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:02, 31 March 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. Star Mississippi 14:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism

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

Article contains only three sources, only one of which is independent and does not do anything other than say this group exists. An examination of other top mentions finds that all mentions of this organization are simply acknowledgement that people are members of it or that it exists - no actual detail about it, which means they don’t qualify under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Any useful information can be moved to relevant pages. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did a bit of searching and found a bit of info on them: NY Times, Problems of Post-Communism (Republished her?), "Ideological Basis of the Organizational Crisis of Marxism-Leninism in the United States" (mentioned? Don't have access). Not sure how helpful that is. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article does mention them, although mostly in the context of a legal struggle with members and the Communist Party. Certainly the most comprehensive look I've seen, which isn't saying much. Toa Nidhiki05 19:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This faction is important in the history of the CPUSA, and it is surprising, in a sense, that it still exists over 30 years later. The sources discovered by MJL are very good, and here is another one. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please read WP:BEFORE and remember notability has nothing to do with current content. Sources provided here more than adequate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: In Toa Nidhiki05's defense, I'm pretty sure a WP:BEFORE happened, but he didn't find the same sources as me because I used different methods. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BEFORE did happen, and I strongly maintain this organization is not notable. A source mentioning the existence of an organization is in no way proof of its notability; read WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Toa Nidhiki05 20:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Another example of this editor mass nominating articles without doing WP:BEFORE.--User:Namiba 17:08, 25 March 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 , but this does not preclude an eventual merger if deemed helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 14:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of Kansas

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

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party, the Socialist Party USA. Any useful information can easily be merged there. Toa Nidhiki05 18:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Kansas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I searched and added some sources, I think the combination of the NYT article and the writing about V Smith combined to be significant coverage and are independent of the source, therefore meeting WP:NONPROFIT criteria 2, but I'm not sure it is "significant" so I'm caveating "weak". CT55555 (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that the NYT piece does not once mention Kansas or the Socialist Party of Kansas; it's referring exclusively to the federal party, which is undeniably notable. CT55555. Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I was running on an assumption as the text is too small to see. Consider my contribution as a very weak keep then, because I'm also influenced in the other direction by Goldsztajn's comments below. CT55555 (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An effective WP:BEFORE shows quite quickly that the SPA had elected state assembly members and a state senator, as well as the mayoralties of multiple Kansas towns prior to WW1. Article should include that history, but current content is not a reflection of notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Electing officials are nice, but not evidence of independent notability from the clearly notable federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a political party, electing notable officials is like the easiest way to determine notability, as there is guaranteed to be inherent coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is actual coverage rather than assumed coverage, I'd be glad to see it. Toa Nidhiki05 23:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztain. Please save us the trouble next time and search for sources before nominating.--User:Namiba 13:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You first, because you haven't given any. Toa Nidhiki05 23:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The presumed notability of NPOL is a perfectly reasonable principle to apply here given the evidence presented of a swag of elected representatives at the state level. The onus shifts to those seeking delete why that presumption doesn't apply or why the hundreds of historical newspaper reports about the party, which a simple BEFORE reveals, do not qualify for a pass of WP:NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again - if notability is so clear here, find some sources. Toa Nidhiki05 04:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an extensive description of the Party and its Kansas-related archive at the Kansas Historical Society. "As socialists increased in size and vocality most newspapers in the county including the Times started campaigns denouncing the party as a threat to home and church." An "Army of Amazons": The Language of Protest in a Kansas Mining Community, 1921-22 p.693 There's multiple references to the Party in Kansas in James Green's (1978) "Grass-Roots Socialism Radical Movements in the Southwest, 1895–1943". These took me 10 minutes to find. There's also the already mentioned numerous sources available via newspapers.com. The most simple searching reveals extensive evidence of the Party's presence and actions in early 20th Century Kansas; there's no shortage of reliable sourcing available for anyone who wishes to write an article. It's not unreasonable to expect a nominator to carry out simple searching using the tools widely available to all. If you're not already a member of the WP:WIKILIB, I'd highly recommend it, if you are, perhaps make more use of it. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename Regardless of whether or not this article gets deleted, it should be listed on the Socialist Party USA list. Having looked at the two articles for the former state parties of California and Maine, I think we could find enough to pad this out a little more, but I agree that the notability of the article is questionable. This party/chapter is not active and it is not listed on the Socialist Party USA's official website. This element of Kansas history is important in that it existed at all. However, if this article is actual meant to be about the chapter founded in 2008 under the SPUSA, I'm not sure that information about socialism is actually relevant. I would much rather see this information merged to a Socialism in Kansas type page. IronRose26 (talk) 14:27, 31 March 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 Fred Newman (philosopher). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Workers Party

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

This political party might not even exist. Citations are virtually nonexistent as is any evidence of notability. Toa Nidhiki05 18:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fred Newman (philosopher), the founder of this small party that existed only in the 1970s. Here is a New York Times article that mentions the party in passing, while making it clear that it was a Fred Newman creation. The core group later founded the New Alliance Party, influential in New York politics for decades. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 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. Sandstein 19:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parodius music

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

This article is not nearly notable enough to justify having its own article, This article was a redirect in the past and was unexpectedly and un-explained reverted. This article does not contain enough sources to pass notability, and is in general not notable enough. Either Delete or Merge into Parodius PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Video games. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three of these sources are YouTube videos, while one is a blog. This does not pass notability. Gabe114 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. While articles on a certain game/series's music are not necessarily fancruft, this article is largely listcruft track listings and FANDOM style material. People interested in preserving it should probably transwiki it, if it isn't already elsewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a massive collection of unsourced trivia. While a section about its music could certain exist, it's hard to advocating merging any of this in particular... Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't have any reliable sources, but it could work on something like a fan wiki on Parodius--24.44.76.88 (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In 2007, I followed what people on Wikipedia did with video game articles at the time: I put in game trivia and non encyclopedic information. Most of the information in this article is now found in the Gradius Wiki on Fandom, which includes the Parodius games. JudgeSpear (talk) 18:03, 25 March 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 procedural close as misplaced and redundant. Article page was tagged separately (and the associated discussion page was created properly)--no need to tag the talk page as well. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 23:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Robiul Islam Jibon

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

Non notable. Coriannakox (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Journalism, Music, and Bangladesh. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 23 March 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. Sandstein 19:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bazaar Technologies

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

non-notable spam, sourced to black hat SEO, press releases and passing mentions. CUPIDICAE💕 17:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Pakistan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Author:I think that Bazaar Technologies is a notable startup, in Pakistan's startup space no other company has received bigger pre-seed funding.

The article is not spam, though I am sure it can be improved.

The company has already raised $100 million, which is a notable feat itself in Pakistan. The company has been covered by Bloomberg, Forbes, Harvard Business Review, with sustained coverage for the last 2 years.

I don't know what a black hat SEO is, SEO is search engine optimization, on the article I have only linked it to their official website, I have no affiliation with the company in the discussion.

I have not covered any press releases by the company, in case there are any, please identify them, they will be removed.

There are complete articles specifically related to this company on several websites, these are not passing mentions. Elmisnter! (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

made further changes to the article, it really did look like it was a promotional piece, I have removed the details about the founders and made the article more concise. I hope we get to keep it, I am planning to cover Pakistan's start up space so I will be adding more companies to Wikipedia. Elmisnter! (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hmmm... the ref says "Bazaar is trying to take a stake and solidify its place in the booming $170 billion retail market" becomes in the article "an aim to digitize Pakistan's $170 billion retail market". Really? Neutral? Victuallers (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment from author now that you it like this I guess it should just mention that 'it aims to bring local retail stores to its online platform' or 'it intends to give a digital platform to local retailers' Elmisnter! (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the spelling drift from Bazar to Bazaar throughout the article? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. The references are the usual mixture of funding announcements although there is one paper from the Havard Business School dealing with the topic on whether the company should offer financing to its customers. I do not have access to the paper but it should be noted that multiple references are required. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 30 March 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.

Jacqueline Hayden

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

no evidence of notability, only sourced to primary sources, a search turned up nothing other than ppl with the same name, a7 speedy declined due to it being "an older article with limited resources on it", that's not really a reason to decline speedy as it doesn't actually address the criterion suggested. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Photography, and Ohio. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF, she is a professor emerita of film and photography at Hampshire College and won a Guggenheim Fellowship. I have also added a profile of her from The Chronicle of Higher Education and an ARTnews review that mentions her work to the article. On Proquest, there is also an abstract for a Summer 1996 review titled "Coming of age" in the journal Afterimage (Vol. 23-24, Iss. 6-1) where the author "discusses highlights of the conferences including the premiere Cecilia Condit's video "Oh, Rapunzel" and an exhibition of Jacqueline Hayden's photographs", and an abstract for a 1994 review from the Boston Globe titled "The bold meets the soulful" that "reviews several art exhibits in the Boston area, including drawings by Natalie Alper and the figure model series by Jacqueline Hayden at the Howard Yezerski Gallery". Based on these sources, there also appears to be support for WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above; subject meets both WP:GNG and specific notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Withdraw my nom to delete, it appears that the sources presented above didn't appear to me due to the fact that their are multiple people who share the same name making it difficult to distinguish what was about each Jacqueline Hayden with me mistaking sources about this Jacqueline to be about others including a political lecturer in dublin whose results appeared first due to geographic location skewing my search results. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 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. Sandstein 19:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Labor Party (United States, 1996)

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

Minor socialist party with no history of electoral success and no WP:SIGCOV in third-party, reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Once notable, always notable. It's hard to remember that far back, but at one time this was actually a big deal within the left wing of the U.S. labor movement. While it turned out to be another fizzle, like the Citizens Party, it attracted some serious national attention and worried the usual establishment figures within both the Democratic Party and the labor bureaucracy. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence of there is original notability? The article doesn't have any independent sourcing! Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See [19] [20], [21] for just a few examples.--User:Namiba 17:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing is provided. --Enos733 (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 minute search on newspapers.com turns up thousands of items of press coverage ... even leaving aside alternate spellings of the UK or Israeli parties, there's a vast amount of material that clearly shows notability. Easily passes WP:NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:18, 26 March 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. Sandstein 19:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Action (United States)

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

An extremely minor and unimportant socialist party with no elected officeholders (aside from a single victory in a non-partisan race by an apparent party member) or history of anything resembling ballot access, let alone electoral success. The vast majority of sources are to the party's website or Ballot-access.org. Among the remaining sources, source 15 doesn't mention the party at all and source and source 16 doesn't mention them either. Any other mentions appear to be glancing, with no real detail on anything other than the fact the party evidently exists. Any useful information can surely be merged into other Trotskyist articles. Toa Nidhiki05 15:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Alexander source is the standard for Trotskyist groups; it is reliable and provides substantial information on the group. Klehr looks like another substantial, independent, source. Material sourced to the party itself might benefit from trimming, but that's no reason to delete. Warofdreams talk 16:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kiehr source appears to be a dictionary-style entry in a comprehensive collection of almost every American Trotskyist group under the sun. Per WP:ORGDEPTH ("inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria"), this likely doesn't qualify as independent sourcing. Toa Nidhiki05 17:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warofdreams. This book, which is easily findable by following the required action of looking for sources before mass nominating articles, discusses SA extensively. Your opinion that Socialist Action is "extremely minor and unimportant" is not relevant here.--User:Namiba 13:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Present content is not an indicator of notability. Discussed over 1.5 pages in Alexander's International Trotskyism (Duke UP, 1991), the key *reference* text of Trotskyism in the 20th Century, it is not "indiscriminate". Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:29, 27 March 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. Sandstein 19:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Muslimah World 2021

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

I can find no evidence that this is a notable event, but perhaps there are good Arabic, Farsi or other language sources for this? Fram (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Muslimah in case of no improvement. _signed,511KeV ^(talk) 17:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the page has been moved, and the AfD tag removed. I have readded the AfD tag. Fram (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like nominating a page for deletion at AfD, and at the same time editing it, so someone else will have to sort this out; but most of the text now is about the regular Miss Universe pageant, and not about the one up for deletion. Fram (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the content copied from Miss Universe 2021 and the accompanying citations. Note the list of winners is completely different from that which appears in this version dated March 23 and different again in this revision, also dated March 23. Note the contestant names where bluelinked point to articles about countries (India, Iran, etc). — Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 25 March 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. Sandstein 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Allen–Patrick Mahomes rivalry

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

The article is about a non-existant rivalry between two players who don't face off against one another. They have only played 4 games against one another at this point. The only other NFL player rivalry page I've seen is Tom Brady–Peyton Manning rivalry, in which there were 17 games played by two all-time greats. Fails WP:GNG and may be WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Many sources describe a "budding rivalry" which may or may not evolve into something further. A Google search shows "budding rivalries" between several other pairs of quarterbacks that never developed. Potentially draftify as a WP:ATD. The "rivalry" may or may not develop, but that would be at least five years down the road. As a comparison, the Brady-Manning rivalry article was created in 2014, after the two QBs already had 15 meetings including four in the playoffs. Brad Hat (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Kansas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:TOOSOON. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 17:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably WP:TOOSOON. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete In addition to good reasons above, I'm going to stick this one with WP:IAR because not having this article would make Wikipedia better. Perhaps enthusiastic editors could try another wiki better suited for this content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing particularly notable about this rivalry. Sources are just a comparison of two young top tier QBs, which is pretty WP:ROUTINE in terms of sports coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Interestingly enough, this article seems to suggest the possibility of an overall rivalry between the Bills and the Chiefs, dating back to the 1960's, however, the way the present article is currently constructed in focusing solely on the modern era of just Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes, it is simply WP:TOOSOON to tell if this will end up being something like the Brady-Manning rivalry or not. No prejudice against recreation at a later date if this rivalry develops further and additional sources supporting the concept of a rivalry between these two players come along. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The rivalry between the Bills and Chiefs does have some coverage, but it's already covered in Buffalo Bills#Kansas City Chiefs. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draftify. While this page is promising, I also agree it is WP:TOOSOON. Though Allen and Mahomes aren't divisional rivals, they may still play each other quite a bit if both their teams stay on top of their divisions, to answer Hey man im josh's concern. But as many of you pointed out, we don't know this yet, so this may violate WP:CRYSTAL. --WuTang94 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry if I offend my fellow members of the Bills Mafia and/or my city, but I think it's a bit too early to cover this. Let's wait a while (1-2 years), and see what happens. But even then, that might not be necessary. With free agency and all these radical changes being made to team rosters, who knows what could happen next time these two young guys meet? Maybe it won't be a rivalry anymore. Let's delete and see what happens. Bottom line. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can recreate this as "promising draft" if the page is ultimately deleted. That way we can hold onto it as a draft in the event that Allen/Mahomes takes off like Brady/Manning did, or if it fizzles out like Allen/Darnold did I can request a "speedy delete" of the draft. WuTang94 (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... this looks like a blizzard. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 14:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If no further comments by EOD today I can volunteer to move the page to the draftspace. Any opposed to that? WuTang94 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 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. Sandstein 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Neequaye

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

Has not played at the required level per WP:NFOOTBALL - BEFORE includes Soccerway [22] which shows she has only played some national under 17 games back in 2012, fails WP:GNG Josey Wales^Parley 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Josey Wales^Parley 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Josey Wales^Parley 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Josey Wales^Parley 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Ghana mens' league is not fully professional, so I assume the womens' league isn't either, although I couldn't find a source explicitly confirming this. Toadspike (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Comment. I think we should encourage the growth of our coverage of women's football and I don't agree with applying FPL here, especially if this lady is an international. Which, as I now see, she isn't so I'll put this on hold for now. Thanks, Joseph2302. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't look to be a proper international player, just a youth international according to sources provided by the nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a few squad list mentions but these don't add up to WP:GNG. Being on the bench as an unused substitute in six U17 Ghana fixtures is not a valid claim to notability either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Putting WP:NFOOTY aside, the subject fails WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. As such, the subject does not meet the requirements for a stand alone article. GauchoDude (talk) 13:03, 28 March 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 Progressive Party (United States, 1948). Sandstein 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Progressive Party

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

A non-notable state branch of the 1948 Progressive Party. Any useful information can be merged into the main article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like you are making deletion nominations for a large number of similar articles. Would you like to consider bundling the nominations the next time you do something like this? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not bundle the nominations. Down that road lies madness. Some of these may need to be merged, but the merger targets varry. Also one may be found to be notable. Each political party is different and stands or falls on its own, bundling is not at all a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If it was a branch of the 1948 Progressive Party as you say, it seems appropriate to redirect it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironmatic1 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 March 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 consensus about a redirect to Frank Fasi#Best Party; which means that editors are free to create one on their own. Sandstein 18:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best Party of Hawaii

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

Minor political party that served as a vehicle for a single run for office by a single Hawaiian politician, Frank Fasi. The party has virtually no hits and no independent notability outside of its association with Fasi. Any information of value can be merged into the Frank Fasi article or the 1994 Hawaii gubernatorial election article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Frank Fasi. KidAd • SPEAK 01:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable and I'm not sure it's a term people are likely to search for considering how obscure it is. Unless people are looking for the best party in Hawaii, which in that case the Frank Fasi article would be the wrong place to send them. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 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. Even though there is low participation, the content is unsourced, which makes it an evident failure of WP:V apart from the issue of notability. Sandstein 18:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Team International

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

This professional wrestling group was PRODed by Fourthords with the reason: "Unverified and lacking evidence of notability for 13.78 years".

I am neutral to this deletion and feel this should be taken to AfD instead, so I have dePRODed and started the discussion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Springnuts (talk) 15:59, 23 March 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. Sandstein 18:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jarly

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

He has worked as part of the production team for famous articles, but is not famous himself. Does not have significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point - the subject is not famous in a media logic sense. But is fame really a requisite for a Wikipedia article? According to guidelines as far as I can read, it seems to be notability? Creating "famous" works should perhaps be within the realm of notability? Kransen (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. When I read the article I thought that of course he is notable if he wrote all those notable songs. But when I checked the sources it looks like he mostly worked as a producer. I am not convinced that is enough of an artistic contribution to outweigh the lack of WP:GNG coverage. Sjö (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a further point, in the more notable productions he was involved in, he is one of several producers in the credits on the Wikipedia articles. However, taking Came Here for Love as an example, this was added today by an IP and Jarly doesn't appear in the credits of discogs. Mvqr (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really what you are suggesting is that working in a team renders the team members not notable? And also record producers are per se not notable if they didn't also write the music they produce? Both very biased views, and not fit for a discussion on the topic of deleting a specific page, rather an interesting philosophical one on the various roles in music and their importance? But back to the topic - you want to delete the page of a record producer while their music has been awarded with as many as 8 UK Platinum awards (8 x 600 000 sales), with the argument that it's not notable enough? What does a record producer have to do in your eyes to be worthy of a Wikipedia page?

As to the Discogs comment - I have no idea why they are not listing the actual label copy like the Spotify/Tidal and Genius do, Discogs is afaik crowdsourced with somewhat less strict guidelines than Wikipedia. Kransen (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been anything written about Jarl/Jarly anywhere? I couldn't find anything beyond listing his name in the sources, and failed to contribute anything when I tried to look through the Swedish newspaper archive for new sources. //Julle (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no sign anything has been written about Jarly elsewhere, which means this article is built of very thin foundations. Would be very happy to switch to keep if someone could point to better sources. //Julle (talk) 01:09, 29 March 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 Ice hockey at the 1928 Winter Olympics – Rosters#Belgium. Sandstein 18:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

André Bautier

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

Bautier was a non-medaling Olympian. Per the hockey fandom Wiki which has the most information I could find on him anywhere, Olympia lists him in a chart with no explanatory text at all, Bautier played in 1 game in the Olympics. He played club hockey in Belgium. This is not the level that would lead to passing notability guidelines for hockey. There are three other language sources on him, of those 2 use only the one source we have here in the English version. The Magyar Wikipedia seems to have two other data table links, but nothing that is even as far as I can tell close to being a reliable secondary source that is indepdent and gives significant coverage. My google book search mainly turned up cases where someone with the last name of Andre had their name just before someone in a list with the first name of Bautier. There is no evidence at all that this person was at all even marginally notable. Belgium's ice hockey team played in the 1927 European championships, where it got a silver medal, but the evidence I have come across so far suggests that Bautier did not play in that game. Everything I found lacked any sourcing on him or in the unreliable fandom source it suggests that he is far below our inclusion criteria as a hockey player. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He did play for the national team in the 1920s, but if nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Ice hockey at the 1928 Winter Olympics – Rosters per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Lugnuts. The article is not notable (missing sources and claim to notability), and hardly substantive. Toadspike (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Ice hockey at the 1928 Winter Olympics – Rosters per WP:PRESERVE, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ice hockey at the 1928 Winter Olympics – Rosters per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and so on. Ingratis (talk) 19:27, 23 March 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. Sandstein 18:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Circhos

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

All of the content here has been included in the Scandinavian folklore page. I did make this a redirect into that article, but another editor has suggested I bring this up at AfD. QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I suggest adding the remaining information from this source [23] to Scandinavian folklore, but I don't think this one creature has received significant coverage. Toadspike (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another sentence to Scandinavian folklore. Toadspike (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! QueenofBithynia (talk) 09:49, 24 March 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. Sandstein 18:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Trust

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

Previously PROD in 2015. Marked as Promo since '09 Defunct company. Article is promotional spam. BEFORE search shows no indications of notability. Slywriter (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Companies should be held to a higher standard than other subjects due to the greater possibility of COI editing, and this does not remotely meet the GNG, let alone NCORP. Toadspike (talk) 14:43, 23 March 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 Web development as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web project

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

There's nothing notable about Construction project, Art project, or Anything project. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I don't see any way that could be notable. Ironmatic1 (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Web development. The definition of web project in this article gets a little tangled up trying to say what a project is, but it essentially agrees with our web development article as to consitutes the activity. There are only two articlespace pages that wikilink to this article and both would benefit from having this as their target. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:04, 25 March 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 to delete, after much-extended time for discussion. Discussion suggests that this is a name for an area derived from the street, rather than merely the name of the street. Avenues for improvement have been suggested, and it remains to be seen whether those will be followed up. BD2412 T 23:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kluaynamthai

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

Has been tagged for months without improvement. Lots of mentions, but can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If ref #2 is verifying all of the paragraph it is attached to, then that is non-trivial coverage. At the very least, the bit about being occupied by naval officers is likely verified since the book is about the role of the navy in the 1932 coup. Ref #4#5 is also non-trivial, but I reserve judgement on whether that meets WP:RS. SpinningSpark 12:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt that the book source about the 1930s history of the Navy would support any material apart from that specific statement about Naval officers owning land in the area. Ref #4 is too Google Maps. I think you mean #5, to Propholic.com? It's a real estate website, doing write-ups of Bangkok's various neighbourhoods' development, so while not nearly academic, I think it should be good enough in most cases. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC), 07:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a lot of coverage, but all of it is in light of this joint project by Bangkok University and the National Innovation Agency (NIA) called "Kluaynamthai Innovative Industries District". Here's the NIA's description[24]. Several press articles[25][26][27][28][29]. Also an academic paper[30]. I question a bit whether these count as independent, as they seem to be based on material provided by the university, which is located in the neighbourhood. Merging into a new "Neighbourhoods" section in Khlong Toei district might be a good idea. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Did you see that very rude comment made by the editor above. scope_creep^Talk 19:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article about the street in Bangkok doesn't appear to be notable. But an article about the banana and the associated namings from it probably is. Article needs to be a complete rewrite to be about the fruit, linking to other associations. Looking at the Thai version of the page, it's just a disambiguation to various other pages, that are redlinks. That said, the Thai disambiguation page somehow misses the university campus at th:มหาวิทยาลัยกรุงเทพ#วิทยาเขตกล้วยน้ำไท_(City_Campus). The English equivalent would be Bangkok University#City campus - but that doesn't seem a suitable place for a merge. I'm a little stumped what should be done here. There's unique encyclopaedic content here, but it's in the wrong place. If we draftify, we are most likely just deleting it. Maybe Keep does the least damage. The merge that User:Paul_012 ponders to a new "Neighbourhoods" section in Khlong Toei district might work - but it doesn't fit there either - and surely would go underneath the appropriate subdistrict first - none of which have articles. I'd have thought that these days, the area would be more likely called Ekkamai - though my only familiarity with the area is using the bus station and BTR station.Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a quite well known neighborhood with several things bearing its name, a road, an intersection, a university campus, a hospital, a banana breed, etc. Banana information can be split into a separate section. There is quite some room to grow the article. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:00, 29 March 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 23:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Ponsonby, 12th Earl of Bessborough

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous discussion closed as keep in 2014, on non-policy based arguments (mainly WP:ILIKEIT). Non-notable British peer who inherited his title in 2002, and therefore never sat in the House of Lords (due to the House of Lords Act 1999). Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO (no entries in biographical dictionaries, distinctions, contributions to a specific field). British peers are not inherently notable.

Source assessment follows:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Cracroft's Peerage	value not understood	Deprecated self-published peerage website.	value not understood	✘ No
"BESSBOROUGH", Who's Who 2010, A & C Black, 2010; online edn, Oxford University Press, retrieved December 2009	WP:PRIMARY - written by the subject of the article and equal to a self-published source, per WP:RSP consensus	Unanimous agreement in a 2022 RfC on this source: "There is a consensus that Who's Who (UK) is generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information".	value not understood	✘ No
"DUNCANNON, Viscount; Frederick Arthur William Ponsonby", Who's Who 2010, A & C Black, 2010; online edn, Oxford University Press, retrieved December 2009	Same as above.	Same as above.	value not understood	✘ No
Sean Keane (n.d.) "BREAKING - Earl of Bessborough attends launch of Iverk Show in south Kilkenny". Kilkenny People.	value not understood	value not understood	Passing mention about the Earl's attendance to an event, in a 5-sentence article from a local newspaper. 1st sentence: "The Earl of Bessborough, Sir Myles Ponsonby, attended the launch of the Iverk Show in Piltown this afternoon. " 2 sentence: "His great, great, great, great grandfather established the highly successful show in 1826 to help improve the quality of farm produce in Piltown and Mooncoin." 3rd and 4th sentences are indirect quotes from the Earl. The 5th sentence is about the show.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pilaz (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His name is amusingly parodic-sounding, but beyond that he seems to have done nothing notable to warrant a place in a global encyclopaedia, which is not supposed overtly to favour either inherited position or wealth attained through celebrity (both of which enforce a disproportionate bias towards Anglophone countries - Britain and to a lesser extent Ireland specifically in the first case, all Anglophone countries but especially the United States in the second case - which we should be avoiding). Some peers who have never been eligible to sit in Parliament are notable because they have done things not stereotypically expected of their class, such as the current Earl of Shaftesbury, so there is coverage on these grounds. This one does not appear to be a surprising or unusual figure, so he has not gained the coverage which people of his class once gained as a matter of course, before modern celebrity culture, which probably would push some peers of those times past our notability guidelines even if they had not all been eligible to sit in the Lords (indeed, there are probably people born into the aristocracy before 1939, and even more so before 1914, who never inherited actual titles and did not sit in Parliament but are Wiki-notable through such coverage in ways their equivalents today would not be). RobinCarmody (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, but there isn't such a thing as a global "notability factor" detached from specific cultural contexts. People who are notable in one culture may not be notable in another culture, and there is nothing inherent wrong with that. And I don't think we should be mocking naming practices of specific cultures for no very good reason. Atchom (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable individual. Practically zero coverage by reliable sources. No in-depth coverage. A passing mention in the Kilkenny People does not make a Wikipedia article. If it does, where is this lovely couple's article? AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 24 March 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. Sandstein 18:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shatarup Ghosh

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

Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not meeting WP:BIO. Not a major/leading politician. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Updated info, the politician might not won election but had leading and active role in state politics. More information is provided. AnkurPl 16:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there's a bit of refbombing with quote-only coverage, but these three ^[1]^[2]^[3] (and this opinion piece^[4]) seem to satisfy WP:GNG. The problem is that all these are clustered around 2011 election and while the sources are reliable, paid coverage can't be ruled out. But I'm going to vote keep on the presumption that there may be more in Bengali. Hemantha (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Singh, Shiv Sahay (14 March 2011). "CPM sees spark in college grad,nominates him for Kasba". The Indian Express.
^ Yengkhom, Sumati. "Young gun says it with his jeans". The Times of India. Times of India. Retrieved 25 March 2011.
^ "At 25, a chip off the new Left block". Hindustan Times. 15 March 2011.
^ Sarkar, Adheesha. "A SUITABLE POSTER BOY". Telegraph India. Retrieved 19 April 2011.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional scrutiny of the sources presented by Hemantha would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hindustan Times and Telegraph articles meet qualifications of being significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has strong references and have some significant reliable sources with deep coverage. @@@XyX _talk 14:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In agreement with Hemantha. Angad.uday (talk) 20:08, 27 March 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. Speedied as unambiguous advertising and a copyright violation from https://qasimalishahfoundation.org/about-qasf/. Bishonen | tålk 09:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Ali Shah Foundation

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

Fails WP:NORG. lack of significant coverage in independent sources found. (t · c) buidhe 08:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied the article as not only unambiguous advertising but a copyright violation from [31]. Bishonen | tålk 09:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:19, 23 March 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Turner (political consultant)

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

I was able to check all but one of the sources, but they only mention the subject in passing, which does not count for notability. I did not turn up additional sources by searching. (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources need to say substantial amounts of things about a person, not just drop their name, for us to pass GNG. Turner may well be a very important political consultant, but if we do not have reliable sources talking about him substantially we cannot justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. The references cited are not in depth, just small mentions. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. I expected to find more but nothing of substance turned up on Newsbank, WikiLibrary or Google. Cabrils (talk) 01:44, 29 March 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 the history of planet numbering should be explained in an article, not via disambiguation pages. But I can't delete First planet (disambiguation) and all the others via this AfD, because they have not been tagged for deletion. They will need to be nominated separately. Sandstein 18:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second planet (disambiguation)

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

Useless WP:TWODABS; per Praemonitus (who reverted me when I added a hatnote at the primary topic pointing to the other topic), Nobody is going to confuse Venus with an archaic model. Note there was a previous mass AfD including this page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First planet in 2012, which closed as no consensus* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On purely technical grounds, without checking what else is named "second planet", this is a sort-of primary topic disambiguation, with the main "second planet" being venus and the subordinate "second planet" being mercury (planet) and could be dealt with using headnotes. There is a case against the reversion, although that list and the several other 2-entry articles are just crying out for a navbox in a template instead of all of these wordy lists across multiple articles:

Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except 5, 9, and 10 as useless WP:OR bullcrap. As for the entries that are not planets, dwarf planets, or asteroids:
- The song listed at Third planet and the Zooniverse program listed at Fourth planet (disambiguation) can be handled via a hatnote from Earth and Mars, respectively.
- Fifth planet (disambiguation) has valid uses related to a hypothetical planet that used to be between Mars and Jupiter.
- The other entry on Seventh planet (disambiguation), which goes to Five-planet Nice model, makes no sense.
- Pluto, Planet Nine, and Planet 9 (record label) can be listed at Ninth planet (disambiguation).
- Tenth planet (disambiguation) has several valid entries, though I'd drop all the items that are specific astronomical objects.
- At Twelfth planet (disambiguation), the book does not have its own article and can be handled as a hatnote from 12th Planet (musician).
But please tag the other pages first. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G: Please reformat your pseudo-navbox as a list of only the disambiguation pages, using {{la}}. It's confusing and causes an extra indent on everything after it. Also, if all the dab pages are to be handled in this AfD, they should be AfD tagged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a pseudo navbox. It is a navbox. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not bundle these when the exact reason the previous discussion in 2012 failed was overbundling. Also note that First planet and Third planet are at the base title so should be redirected to Mercury (planet) and Earth respectively rather than deleted, and I boldly redirected Eleventh planet (which was previously an article discussing planet observations) to Planets beyond Neptune before starting discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. I wasn't suggesting that we delete the others. But Special:Permalink/1061374889 says to me that we've lost something with that redirect. I cannot find anywhere else where Wikipedia had that content, not even planet#history. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Philosophically I can argue that the hatnote violated WP:HATNOTERULES number 3: Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind. The likelihood of somebody looking for "second planet" in the context of the Ptolemaic system and then confusing it with Mars is astronomically small. Praemonitus (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way that I see it is this:
- There are three immediately largely useless disambiguation articles that have very little prose content, no useful edit history, and nothing to disambiguate except planets by number: Second planet (disambiguation), Fourth planet (disambiguation), Sixth planet (disambiguation). Their primary topics rightly point to the current heliocentric model numbers, and most of their space is taken up by cumbersome "See also" lists.
- There is one article where we have lost stuff: eleventh planet. I initially thought about reclaiming that and building upon it, as Lists of planets#In the Solar system does not have the numberings as they have evolved over time. But planet#history has a superficial discussion of the topic that could do with a little more depth, depth that Definition of planet#Minor planets has, for example.
I don't think that this current system serves readers well. Yes, until 1845 the fifth planet (disambiguation) was Ceres. But explaining this to readers in the form of a maze of cross-linked disambiguation pages seems a poor choice. The reader looking for something other than the main topics for the second, fourth, and sixth planets are best off landing directly at planet#history, I think. But I think that that means headnotes or some other indication in venus where to go to find what else, historically, has been the second planet. Similarly for Mars and Saturn. The other numbers, with hypothetical planets and whatnot, are bridges we can cross when we come to them; and it doesn't take the deletion tool to clean up those terrible "See also" sections. Again, the best option may be that for anything other than the hypotheticals and outright non-planets, we direct readers who want the other numbering systems straight to planet#history where there are numbered tables — no navbox, and no massive "See also" lists. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If "Second planet" is ambiguous then a hatnote will suffice. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Disambiguations are cheap. It's a reasonable disambiguation page, and it's a more efficient use of resources per Wikipedia:Disambiguations are cheap. It's more costly to delete the article and have extra records (deleted pages are never really deleted; see Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap) maintained on wikipedia's servers. It's not hurting anything leaving things as they are.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Disambiguations are cheap#When to include a disambiguation page, that essay explicitly does not apply to twodabs cases. Any the rest of your comment is a complete non-argument (see WP:PERF). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. It says a dab page is appropriate when "Two or more topics that might otherwise bear the same title, when there is no primary topic." I would argue we have no primary topic, and therefore a dab page is appropriate in this case. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a primary topic; second planet (correctly IMO) redirects to Venus and has since 2010. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to generate a clearer consensus about each of the "foo number planet (disambiguation)" pages. BD2412 T
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 04:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if there is some scheme by which these can all be merged into a single index-type page, with hatnote referring to sections on that page. BD2412 T 04:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well we already have planet#history that has several tables with the different numberings, plus the (approximate) dates when they applied (e.g. until asteroids stopped being recognized as major planets), the details of which I hope Pppery will pull out of eleventh planet that xe blanked and add to planet#history. I did initially think of a common navbox, but as above (having thought through how many rows the navbox would have to have) I came around to the view that planet#history is where readers should land if they don't want the second planet primary topic, and not second planet (disambiguation). The same for fourth planet (disambiguation) and sixth planet (disambiguation), which are exactly the same case as here with just two things to disambiguate and they are both planets by number. The other numbers we can handle separately, as and when. They aren't parallel cases, and bundling them was a mistake last time at AFD. These three are the same, and count me as having come around to agreement with Shhhnotsoloud, although I'd be easy going with redirecting these three disambiguations. Uncle G (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't make sense, just makes things more ambiguous. Artem.G (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot. Only exists to placate some daft and no longer used numbering system. Even if it did exist, it should be at second planet, which currently and reasonably links to Venus. "Second planet" is not a search term that anyone looking for Mercury would enter. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 1 April 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 already draftified to Draft:Golden Mice NFT by User:WhoAteMyButter, with the redirect to the draft already speedily deleted by User:Fastily as a cross-namespace redirect per WP:CSD#R2. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Mice NFT

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

I would say it fails WP:GNG, there are multiple sources attached, many of them considered reliable. But, almost all of them seem to be "advertising", with the fox news article straight up labelling their article as "Advertising content". Daiyusha (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been draftified, But I think afd should remain, this article is solely backed by promotional references. Daiyusha (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I had originally moved the article to draftspace, in hope that the author would find better sourcing. Unfortunately, I've quickly realized that any dubious sources out there are all going to be advertising press releases. There's simply nothing indicating its notability, and this looks like a case of someone trying to get an article on something they made and using themselves thinly disguised as a source. All the sources in there now are verbatim press releases to each other and not reliable sources at all. Some don't even talk about the subject to begin with. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 04:46, 23 March 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 12:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Weiss

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

This person was a non-medaling competitor in the Olymnpics who lacks and coverage that rises to the level of significant coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Austria. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find this article from Der Standard, I'm still looking for more referencing but apparently Weiss was the goalie for the Wiener EV championship teams in the late 1920's and 30's and sadly had to flee Austria due to being of Jewish ancestry. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by GPL93. Insufficient WP:BEFORE. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources found, above. Looking at his bio, he had a lengthy career, winning golds at the European Ice Hockey Championships, and played for the national team. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the sources available now are a bit skimpy, this is a century old subject from a non-English speaking country, so we would expect that not all the contemporary sources are accessible online now. Given the sources that exist, the indicators of likely notability from his bio, plus the fact that the German Wikipedia considers him notable, I am comfortable that he is notable enough to be kept. Rlendog (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As presented, the sources are scanty, and I place no reliance on the German Wikipedia, which over many such discussions demonstrably has a weaker standard of notability than we do. But: the references to the subject doing something so heinous at the 1928 Winter games to merit a suspension of nearly a year from the national team strongly suggests that there are contemporaneous media accounts saying why. I normally don't place any reliance either on the hoary old fallacy of "sources may exist," but it seems in this case they must. Ravenswing 17:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by GPL93. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed here. Sufficient notability as presented by other above. - Darwinek (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the defense of the nom, sourcing was not easy to find and it wasn't until I searched under the alternate spelling of the subject's name (Weiß) that I found anything. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 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 03:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Abas

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

Completely empty article with little sources to prove notability. wizzito | say hello! 03:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 03:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 03:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How on Earth does this exist? Hardly has a claim to notability, let alone the sources to back it up. Although not relevant to AfD, the page formatting, grammar, and spelling is horrific. Toadspike (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think multiple AfDs have established that even well substantiated claims to be the oldest person in XX do not usually make someone notable.Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because some publication out there jumped on the unsourced claim of super longevity, does not make it notable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Especially if we are going with "this person was widely believed to be super old, although it was not true", we need way more sourcing on it than we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On one hand, there are reliable sources talking about the man, but we would need to be careful to reflect what they say. On the other hand, I would find it hard for anyone to write significantly about the topic at hand. I don't see the article expanding much from what is already written.

The article says Mr Abas says the secret of long life is simple living, moderate exercise and a careful diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables. and He married in his late 60s and is still living with his wife, Minah, who is said to be aged 100. - made me chuckle ;) Rlink2 (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Message above If he married in his 60s, and theres a 50 year gap, then his wife, would be around 10 when she would marry a 60 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAGuyNamed (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent notability, just an unsupported claim, although it is admittedly hard to verify a 19th century birth date. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - certainly hard to verify and definitely not worth it given it is just a claim. Zippybonzo | talk 11:41, 26 March

2022 (UTC)

Delete Not Notable, and hard to verify, most likely it was for publicity.

JustAGuyNamed (talk) 4:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K7 Total Security

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

An ancient G11 (Hi @TransporterMan and Theroadislong:), but one for which I cannot find notability. There are false hits such as this one where the software isn't in the reviews but rather a commenter saying "so download it" but sourcing seems limited to churnalism. I am unable to find in depth reviews, nor a merger target. Star Mississippi 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, does not demonstrate notability with the sources provided, and is written like an advert with little to no encyclopedic value. Toadspike (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: About six months ago Raja K7 - note the username suggesting a COI - made several edits to the article removing much of what was there and also created Draft:K7_Computing, but has not reappeared since that one day to do more (or anything else, for that matter). The draft, while defective, is much better than the existing article. Something should probably be done with both if anything is to be done with either. Frankly, it would do the encyclopedia no harm if both were deleted. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:36, 23 March 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 13:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jabaco

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

Cannot find any sources. Appears to be non-notable shareware/freeware project which never took off. Mr248 (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could not locate any sources to satisfy WP:GNG online. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Liance, subject is not notable. Artem.G (talk) 16:35, 25 March 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 03:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Health Security Strategy

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

(This is not about the text, which is likely PD as a US Government work product.) This is about the fact when searching for this strategy paired with its agency to avoid the COVID clutter, there are no non-primary sources so nothing on which to build an article. This talks about an RFI, but there's nothing about the strategy. If it were mentioned at United States Department of Health and Human Services it could be redirected there, but I'm not sure it's DUE, nor is there anything sourced to merge. Suggestions? Star Mississippi 02:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is certainly enough primary sourcing to write an article, there is no demonstrated notability in secondary sources. I hate to delete such a long and detailed piece, but it really doesn’t seem to meet our standards. Toadspike (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is interesting - the AfD, not the article. The first criterion that comes to mind is WP:ROUTINE in that this is regular government business in implementing a public health strategy. The second one that comes to mind is WP:NOTCRYSTAL as the article lays out plans for implementation. Perhaps it is both, with ROUTINE being stronger. I am unable to find secondary coverage of this, likely because it is uncontroversial and routine business. It's also pretty obtuse (AfD is not cleanup, yes), and doesn't impart much nuance other than 'it exists and here is the strategy.' I am also unable to find a suitable merge target as there is no information out there about this in secondary sources in which perspective can be provided. Hence my !vote. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:10, 23 March 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. Sandstein 18:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Target Shooting Sports

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

I can find no evidence this working group's work achieved notability or completion, which means there's no TNT solution for this coat rack. There's no indication that the merger of the governing bodies went through, and no viable ATD target. Star Mississippi 02:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NATSS was seen by many as a 'power-grab' exercise, devised and driven largely by one individual who was subsequently removed from a position where that person could continue having influence.

Some of those backing the proposal preferred to stay in the background, anonymous.

It was quite clear to me, and to very many shooters, that every "workshop" and report was thoroughly biassed, and less than meaningful. Some were seen as downright dishonest.

The arrangement with "Performance Matters" was dubious at best, and possibly worse.

By and large, the shooters of the UK , then and now, seem to feel that their core disciplines are not sufficiently compatible in what they exist to do, and how they are organised, to be suitable for outright amalgamation under one body, as was the ambition of the proponents of the NATSS project. Most notably, the CPSA (clay target shooting)was sceptical from the start, the more so as it was organised differently from the others, and of course because it was (by a margin) by membership and financial status the largest of the targetted bodies for absorption into NATSS. When CPSA announced it was suspending consideration of joining NATSS, the project as a whole became essentially non-viable (most notably financially of course), and withered away quickly thereafter, especially when NSRA soon after also expressed a disinclination to rush towards amalgamation.

That is NOT to say amalgamation is a 'dead duck'.

Doubtless there will be a few who still hanker after amalgamation along the NATSS lines.

The concept of amalgamation and forming a 'NATSS' of some sort was and is often likened to forcing the amalgmation of the national governing bodies of all ball games involving hitting a ball with some sort of implement, such as tennis, badminton, squash, lacrosse, hockey, cricket, table-tennis, and perhaps even ice-hockey and golf. The shooting disciplines are as diverse, which is of course the very reason they evolved into their current national governing bodies.

My own view is to leave the NATSS article in place for a while yet, as it is essentially the ONLY place where may be found a decent explanation of a project which then, and perhaps in the future, would completely change the organisation of the shooting sports, arguably not for the better so far as the grass-roots shooters are involved. 188.30.193.210 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IP 188 for the insight. The only issue with that is we require secondary coverage to have an encyclopedia article, so if this is the only place the information exists, that might be challenging. Star Mississippi 13:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search was similarly unable to find significant coverage in sources independent of the relevant organizations, and I agree with the nom that no alternatives to deletion come to mind. If this "is essentially the ONLY place where may be found a decent explanation" of the project, then unfortunately we can't keep the page either: because our job as an encyclopedia is to summarize information that secondary sources have already collected, our guidelines discourage us from including articles about topics that haven't received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 29 March 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 03:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Investment House

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

I can find no evidence of corporate notability. It existed, and it lost money. Has been deleted before, so we're here v. PROD. Star Mississippi 02:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this does have the three independent sources generally needed for notability, I think it falls under subjects known for a single event (even though that rule is mainly for biographies), namely, losing money. The current sources may also be considered routine. A web search did not turn up any further sources. Toadspike (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried multiple web search engines, and the only additional source I could find are some articles on https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/global-investment-house - the rest were listings and directories, which is not enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). And the linked articles only involve passing mentions of the article (could be wrong though, didn't look through the articles in detail) Rlink2 (talk) 16:52, 23 March 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 Golden Nation Network#Affiliates and stations. Sandstein 18:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DWFB-DTV

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral question Is the "-DTV" suffix in official use by the National Telecommunications Commission, or is it not? I'd like that answered before giving a rationale. Nate • (chatter) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a very tough issue to get to the bottom of, Mrschimpf. It seems that the only way NTC releases lists of operating broadcast stations is when people ask for them in Freedom of Information requests. Looking at recent requests at foi.gov.ph, I now have a full list dated June 2020 and a partial list (one page) from December 2021. In this listing, no suffix is bundled with the call sign. A typical entry reads as follows: Type: TV / Company: People's Television Network, Inc. / Call Sign: DWGT / Ch.: 4 / Location: Quezon City / Province: Metro Manila There are five types of stations, which are TV, Relay, Translator, DTV, and Pay TV (assigned to one station, DZBC channel 30). Translators use the "D-(channel number)-(letters)" scheme. Others have four-letter call signs. In digital, a translator inherits its existing call sign, e.g. D-8-XM (listed as digital 42, analog 8) Mt. Sto. Tomas, Benguet. The FM listings the NTC publishes also use this type of format, so there is little to compare to.

It is very difficult to suss out the correct form for a call sign, though it is worth noting that a lot of "-TV" uses tend to cite to Wikipedia. I understand why "-DTV" might have been chosen by editors, because the Philippines is an ISDB-T country, and in doing so this would follow Japan. I think the broader problem is that a lot of Philippines TV station pages have sought to blindly mimic the form of US pages (plus a dash of their own quirks) when that is not always the most appropriate thing to do. I had to run an AWB edit recently to remove every mention of PSIP, an ATSC 1.0 element inapplicable to this country, from Philippines pages—dozens of them.

I have opted to email the Broadcast Services Division of the NTC in hopes of trying to get a definitive response as to the call sign suffixes topic. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that NTC have not yet released any orders on the standard naming convention on digital-only TV stations. Some of the editors here are just adopting the US naming convention that if a station goes all-digital, they will adopt the -DTV callsign. That's why I reverted some of their edits. -WayKurat (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way the US worked was that all stations pre-transition got a -DT suffix, and then after transition, -DT could be kept if desired but most dropped the suffix or went back to -TV. -DTV as a suffix is much more Japanese. I kind of gather that COVID has really slowed down the NTC, which even in normal times does not seem to be the best at disseminating information. Articles like this put us in the very unusual position of possibly determining the naming conventions ahead of the regulatory authority. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stashing this here... DWCP-DTV, DWFA-DTV, DWFB-DTV, DWFU-DTV, DWHB-DTV, DZEC-DTV, DWVN-DTV, DYBU-DTV, DZBC-DTV, DZOZ-DTV, and DZRJ-DTV are the articles so named at this time. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this discussion is a naming conventions one, but to close it out, I am now in receipt of a reply from the NTC. This is what I sent them on March 2:

1. Do call signs in the Philippines have suffixes for...
AM? (which is correct: DXXX-AM vs. DXXX) FM? (which is correct: DXXX-FM vs. DXXX) TV? (which is correct: DXXX-TV vs. DXXX)
2. If TV stations do have call signs with suffixes...
Does this also apply to translator stations? (which is correct: D-7-ZG-TV or D-7-ZG)
Is there a separate or distinct suffix for digital TV stations (e.g. DWET-DTV), or do digital TV stations also use a -TV suffix?

The reply was dated March 8 and reached my inbox within the last hour.

Please be informed that the International Telecommunication [sic] Union (ITU) allocated/assigned standard call sign prefixes or unique identifiers to radio and television stations for all the countries, assigning DW, DX, DY and DZ prefixes to the Philippines. Prefix DW and DZ is assigned for Luzon, DY for Visayas and DX for Mindanao. For your inquiry, please be informed that same prefixes/call-sign followed by the service type (AM, FM, TV & DTV) for identification can be assigned to different services i.e. DXXX-AM, DXXX-FM, DXXX-TV and DXXX-DTV. While for the translator, the call-sign format as D-(channel)-two suffix i.e. D-7-AB.

So, Mrschimpf, DTV is a valid call sign suffix in the Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Sammi Brie, that will be very helpful for future noms. I promised to remain neutral until I got clarity, and I have the information I need. Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Golden Nation Network#Affiliates and stations as per WP:CHEAP, since we can at least ascertain its main network affiliation. Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: now that the naming question is resolved, consensus on notability will hopefully follow
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Golden_Nation_Network#Affiliates_and_stations. I see no evidence that this is notable under any standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Golden Nation Network#Affiliates and stations per Mrschimpf and Eggishorn as an WP:ATD for failing WP:BCAST. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 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 Camila (album). ✗plicit 13:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Out (Camila Cabello song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONGS - all the sources are from either reviews of its parent album, Camila, or charts and certifications from small music markets. It might add that in my opinion, all the information in this article can be presented in either the Camila album article or Cabello's discography article. Due to these reasons, this article should be redirected to the Camila album. LOVI 33 14:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the album. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as previously noted. Chaddude (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hyperbolick, enough...and related, we can't source when a Linktree or 'pre-save' link came online, so we need to establish that as a no-go for sourcing song releases. Nate • (chatter) 05:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Camila (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:28, 26 March 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 Camila (album). ✗plicit 13:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All These Years (Camila Cabello song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS - all the sources are from primary sources, unreliable sources, or charts and certifications from secondary music markets. In my opinion, all the information presented in this article can either be put in the Camila album article or Cabello's discography article. Due to these reasons, this article should be redirected to the Camila album. LOVI 33 14:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the album. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If the standalone song isn't notable enough, merging seems preferable to deletion. Chaddude (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Camila (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:28, 26 March 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 Intel graphics processing units. Sandstein 18:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Alchemist series

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL, Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. Attempted PROD but a stalker removed the prod tag and policy disallows re-adding it even in the case of obvious vandalism, so here we are. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Intel_Arc#Alchemist, because it's the same topic as this one. «2nd|ias» 03:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- sigh... and that should also be deleted for the same reason. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intel Arc which is a related deletion discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- okay, I could check out the discussion. «2nd|ias» 21:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Intel graphics processing units because it's the same topic "GPU" topic as this one. «2nd|ias» 21:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: definitely needs more input since one potential redirect target is also at AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the one who declared that this article should be redirected, I have the feeling that a recurring theme in Wikipedia is that some articles won't stop being relisted at AfD every time no one comments in the discussions like in here with Arc Alchemist series. Not enough people are interested in these things. I wonder if the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is gonna make the AfD discussions like this more popular.«2nd|ias» 04:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- of course, Intel Arc just got draftified, so this article should be Draftified too. «2nd|ias»
Redirect to List of Intel graphics processing units per 2nd Ias's second opinion. Since there's a product announcement by Intel, I think that ATD better serves WP users than draftification and would have been a better outcome to that AfD as well. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. «2nd|ias» 02:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. MarioGom (talk) 10:52, 30 March 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 Procedural close. Original redirect to Medabots restored. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metabots

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

The article seems to be on an "innovative project" without coverage by any reliable sources online, and the references provided are not independent of the subject in my opinion. Furthermore, the article seems to be written similarly to an advertisement ("The main goal of this project is to create an environment where players are able to earn a sustainable income through gameplay alone") and provides an encyclopedic roadmap. This is my first AfD, so many thanks for your time and help. VickKiang (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I’m not quite sure that’s a valid vote at AfD, but this article is entirely unsourced and is clearly an advertisement. Internet search results indicate that “MetaBots” refers to multiple subjects different from the article subject, and turns up no evidence for the subject of this article. Toadspike (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was created years ago (in December 2005) as a redirect, which I have restored. The newly registered editor who was trying to turn it into an advertisement will be blocked if necessary. – Athaenara ✉ 07:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC) 09:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep original redirect and protect if necessary. The recently added text would have been an easy speedy deletion decision per A7 and/or G11 if it had been created as a new article (and yes, Toadspike, speedy deletion is a valid !vote if the article is seen as meeting the criteria). @VickKiang: Better course would have been simply to revert the spam rather than taking it to AfD, but no harm done. It's never a bad idea to check the edit history to get a better picture of what can/should be done. --Finngall ^talk 19:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and advice, will check article history next time. Should this AfD be closed, as the article was already redirected? Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's good practice for initiating AfDs, which is complicated and finicky. – Athaenara ✉ 00:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Hello all, thanks for all the feedback. I'm a frequent user of Wikipedia, but it's the first time that I decided to create a informative page about a project. Please note that Metabots is not the same as Medabots, so I'm not sure why the page got deleted and redirected to Medabots. Metabots is an upcoming P2E videogame within the Metaverse. Pupose of the page was to provide useful information about the project and videogame, since even Google often confuses and redirect Metabots searches towards the older and well know videogame/tv series of Medabots. Furthermore, I'm not a developer or team member myself, but just a fan of the project who wanted to contribute by starting an informative wikipedia page. I hope this answers all your concers. Hopefully the Metabots page can be restored with the previous content. In case of any additional questions please let me know. Thanks and best regards, Black Eagle NL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Eagle NL (talk • contribs) 18:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should definitely not be restored, it is promotional like an advertisement and unencyclopedic, unless you provide two reliable sources for video games (e.g., IGN, PC Gamer etc... see the video game project for a better list, not merely its homepage itself, which is not independent) and write in a neutral manner (i.e., your version: "MetaBots is an innovative project that combines the Metaverse, NFTs and the Play to Earn concept" and roadmap is indubitably promotional). If you could respond to those issues (which seems to be difficult for such a non-notable game), you might be able to submit for Articles for Creation and it might be approved, however, if you restore it to the previous version it would be reverted to the redirect, or deleted. I hope this helps, some more experienced editors here likely have much more insightful advice, but in a nutshell please do not restore it. Cheers and happy editing. VickKiang (talk) 22:21, 24 March 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!} 21:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Teachenor

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

Non-notable musician. Claims notability for working with other notable names, but WP:NOTINHERITED is in play. Inducted into a hall of fame that does not seem notable on its own. Has written songs but no claim to notability for the songs. Only one album released independently in 1988. Sources are entirely local coverage from his hometown, or the non-notable hall of fame into which he was inducted. Made a few appearances on RFD TV on a show that doesn't even have its own page. His son, Jamie Teachenor, also had his article deleted for lack of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arkansas and Missouri. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, notability was not demonstrated, sourcing is inadequate, and large parts of the article are unsourced. I would not be surprised if there were COI editing going on here (the main contributor has eight times as many edits here as on any other page). Toadspike (talk) 05:13, 23 March 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.

[1] Singh, Shiv Sahay (14 March 2011). "CPM sees spark in college grad,nominates him for Kasba". The Indian Express.

[2] Yengkhom, Sumati. "Young gun says it with his jeans". The Times of India. Times of India. Retrieved 25 March 2011.

[3] "At 25, a chip off the new Left block". Hindustan Times. 15 March 2011.

[4] Sarkar, Adheesha. "A SUITABLE POSTER BOY". Telegraph India. Retrieved 19 April 2011.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Solar system planetary numbering
Modern heliocentric	1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
Ptolemaic geocentric (Sol and Luna numbered per several historic illustrations)	1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
Historical and hypothetical	1st 3rd 5th 7th 8th 9th 10th (also Planet X) 12th