Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 02	September 04 >

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 speedy delete per request by original editor‎. SouthernNights (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles by month of introduction

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

Not an acceptable list as per WP:LISTN. I see no possible use for this. Mr.choppers | ✎ 23:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if creator wants it deleted (below) then draftiying will not be helpful. Draftify/userfy. Brand new good faith article from a relatively new editor. Could feasibly become a valid index/navigational list of cars released if developed. —siro χ o 00:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Month of release is presumably mainly an advertising/business/sales decision that has nothing to do with particular models of vehicles. I suppose an article could be created for the industry's propensity to introduce, say, sports cars in a particular month, trucks in another, but a list? No. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should delete it, this page was created by accident. Glebushko0703 (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not acceptable as a list, and the month of release is mostly advertising. FlutterDash344 (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boar's Breath

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

Restaurant with solely local coverage. No indication of lasting, general significance. Nothing substantive located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and California. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hyperlocal coverage found [1], [2]. The second one is better, but not enough I'm afriad. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Sgubaldo (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:OUTCOMES. I don't see significant coverage. While there is no specific rule or policy, we traditionally only keep restaurants that have achieved national or international coverage, for example in tour/travel guides (e.g., Fodor's) or recognized books about restaurants (Michelin guides). Another possibility is on a National Register of Historic Places such as a famous saloon. I don't see any of that, but if I'm wrong, please tag me. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local coverage which doesn't significant notability. Suonii180 (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean yeah Delete although it kinda baffles me you guys still haven't gotten around to Castle Donuts yet...Americanfreedom (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wish granted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Donuts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
😎Americanfreedom (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Union of European Wrestling Alliances

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

Article sourced, apart from an 'article' on Superluchas website, entirely to brief mentions in a variety of web sources. UEWA doesn't even appear to have its own web presence, so I seriously doubt it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Whatever the reason for this, I have grave doubts this is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article in its current form. Sionk (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Wrestling, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- keep
Subject's reach has included 25 promotions in eighteen countries, several of the promotions have been notable enough to have their own pages (for example All Star Wrestling).

Majority of UEWA title holders have their own pages also, most notably Drew McIntyre. The European Heavyweight title is already featured on Wiki, but there is room to add the Cruiserweight title history to this page.

Outside of governing body work, there's also collaborations in other notable promotions like Insane Championship Wrestling and All Wrestling Organization in Israel. There's also been multiple title-for-title matches for the ICW World Heavyweight Championship and the UEWA title.

Article is sourced/referenced, very little primary UEWA source material used.

Page also has value as a catch-all page for promotions which do not have an active wiki page or which only have a page in their native language (I.E Dansk Pro Wrestling). 73.205.220.195 (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

recommend keep

Unique and wide-reaching international wrestling company with titles defended in and outside of its network of promotions. Titles held by notable wrestlers and defended in notable promotions. Also notable for being Lionheart's final match. SugeRight (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing anywhere to say this organisation is "unique" and organisations do not inherit notability from their products (i.e. competitions and events they organise). Let's see some reliable news coverage (not fan sites or stats pages) that talk about UEWA in some depth. Sionk (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this passes NCORP.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went through the 69 sources in the article and tried to look for more online, and I couldn't come up with a single sentence about UEWA in reliable sources beyond "it's a European confederation of wrestling promotions". No significant coverage, fails WP:NCORP. Pilaz (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I explained to Suge that he is using unreliable sources, but doesn't listen. Many of the sources looks like just wrestling blogs. What's wrestling cover empire? Official WWE Amino? WrestlingCorner.de? Other sources are just WP:ROUTINE results or passing mentions, not a in-deep coverage of UEWA. Notability is not include just every result you get from google. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Mine

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept at AfD in 2005 when our standards were "idk i bet its real". No indication this is a notable special effect or device. Sole source is a how-to and I was not able to find any significant independent coverage on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Light merge or redirect to pyrotechnic as WP:ATD —siro χ o 02:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, then it would need to be a disambiguation, given Ghost Mine (TV series) —siro χ o 02:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't merge unverified content, and I didn't find any independent sourcing to verify this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a common enough term for a minimal merge, redirect, or dabmention, I think. Though doesn't meet N on its own. Eg here's how the US state of Oregon defines them [3] —siro χ o 03:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically an extended DICDEF. And wow AfD from 2005, trippy... Who what when where and why eh? Sure, it's notable... Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I'd really enjoy shooting one of these off however that's not grounds for notability.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best College of Polomolok, Inc.

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

PROD'd in 2011 as unsourced; de-PROD'd by an IP. No independent sources ever added. PROD'd again this year by someone else as "Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Non-notable school lacking WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS."; de-PROD'd as it has been PROD'd before.

That editor never followed up on AfD, so here we are. No indication this is a notable or accredited institution with any independent sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. HueMan1 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. HueMan1 (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete - for a business, we'd speedy delete a page sourced only to their own website with no good sources to be found as PROMO (G11). I see no reason not to do the same here. Schools aren't exempt from CSD - just from A7. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taleah Carter

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Nicaragua, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who henchmen

AfDs for this article:

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

While this one is a bit more controversial than some of the other Doctor Who AfDs in the past, given it's a whole list, I can't seem to find anything that shows that the henchmen in Doctor Who are in anyway notable enough for a standalone list. At least with the villains list, there are characters there who were the main antagonists of their given episodes, or recurring antagonists. The only characters on this list who recurred outside of spin-off media were Novice Hame, Lytton, and Lucy Saxon. The rest are either incredibly minor characters, or characters who are already described in their respective episode's article. I legitimately cannot find a reason for this list to exist, as most of the characters in this are rather inconsequential or minor. The contents of this page can easily be redirected to the respective episode they appeared in with the exception of the three I mentioned prior, who could also probably be redirected to the episode they played the biggest role in. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list does not meet LISTN. It also does not have a navigational purpose since these characters do not have articles. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've tried searches using various terms and I'm not finding any evidence that the overall topic of the henchmen/minions/etc. that appeared in Dr. Who is a topic that has any coverage in reliable sources, so this list fails WP:LISTN in that regard. Additionally, all of the character listed are incredibly minor, most of them only appearing in a single episode/story of the series or, even worse, a single piece of non-notable spinoff material. None of the characters listed here are notable enough to have their own article - even the ones that appear to have a blue link or a "main article" link are actually linking to articles on the episodes they appeared in or other such articles - so this also serves no purpose as a navigational list. The fact that the characters listed here are so minor also means that trying to merge this to any of the other Dr. Who character lists would not be an appropriate course of action, as doing that would just flood those lists with a bunch of non-notable characters. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters or rename to List of Doctor Who characters and use it as a center of merging several others similar articles from Category:Lists of Doctor Who characters. I think most if not all franchises should be limited to a single list of characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. The henchmen aren't a notable class of concepts with WP:SIGCOV, and doesn't qualify for a separate character list from any main character list. A redirect to List of Doctor Who characters might make sense if someone wants to take on the work suggested by Piotrus. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is akin to a minor list of video game enemies or something similar, and equally as non-notable. It fails WP:LISTN and should be removed, as Wikipedia is not FANDOM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Minor list, as other editors have pointed out. Does not meet WPLLISTN. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of composers by age

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY: a nice project, but not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is one rare example of where categories (e.g., Composers born in 1954 or whatnot) would serve the project better, but even then, I question the need for such specificity (categories for individual centuries already exist). As it stands, this is an overwhelmingly large scope for a list on Wikipedia, and one that is ultimately not needed. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. This is a weird one. Other than possibly those who died far too young (I'm looking at you, Wolfgang), how long a composer (or politician, musician, businessperson, etc.) lived is not a suitable basis for a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact this includes living composers makes the concept untenable. Not only do living composers need constantly updated, what is the criteria for adding a new composer coming into public awareness? This idea might work if listed only dead composers and was titled "Age of Composers at Death" or something similar..but is such a thing really necessary? ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. Beyond that particular policy, it's tough to find any specific violations but this list simply isn't sustainable or useful for an encyclopedia. I agree with the other voters above on how it just doesn't work. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of slavery in the United States

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A nice project, but not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is not an appropriate subject for wikipedia. WP:NOTDIRECTORY certainly applies, along with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. User:Let'srun 19:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My first thought is that this is not appropriate, per WP:NOTCATALOG. However, per WP:STANDALONE/WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY, this does seem permissible as stated: Bibliographies are a list of relevant references for a subject area. I'm open either way. This seems like a bit of a grey area. Thoughts anyone? — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Edward-Woodrow:: The Bibliography of slavery in the United States is no different from any other standalone bibliography in Wikipedia. Two relevant examples: Bibliography of the American Civil War and Bibliography of the United States Constitution, the latter of which was nominated for deletion last year and not only survived but has since been rated of High Importance in several respects. Also, the bibliography on slavery is not even close to being a "complete" directory, since there are at least 20,000 related books and articles on the subject. Evidence: Bibliography of Slavery, University of Virginia. As I noted in the article's lede paragraph, this is primarily "a guide", and accordingly I encouraged readers to consult the bibliographies of related articles for "more complete listings" on the issue's many sub-topics. I should also note that Wikipedia includes countless list pages on far more trivial subjects and that are far more complete, so the policies cited seem to be either selectively or randomly applied, though in general I support their purposes. To let everyone know, I will be asking a few other editors who have been helpful in offering suggestions for improving the article to add their comments to the AfD; however, I don't intend to politic for my POV. Allreet (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -It is very suitable for Wikipedia. I agree with Allreet and disagree with Edward Woodrow. It is simply false to say this is a simple "catalog" --such a catalog would list tens of thousands of items. Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Specialized list articles: Lists of works include bibliographies.... Bibliographies are a list of relevant references for a subject area, including books, journal articles, and web articles —siro χ o 03:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have many fine subject bibliography pages and this is a crucial topic in U.S. history. jengod (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this bibliography is probably one of the best collections about the topic presently available, and should be a featured article rather than being inexplicably focused on for deletion. Well defended above, an obvious viable topic for a bibliography, and I would ask the nominator to please be much more selective if they intend to continue nominating articles, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda MacKay

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

WP:BLP of a television host, not reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria for television hosts. As always, television hosts are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and instead have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work -- but this just lists a bunch of jobs she's had, while citing absolutely no sources whatsoever to demonstrate that she's received any GNG-building media coverage for it, and it's been flagged for referencing problems since 2011 without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Video games. Skynxnex (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom in whole. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or any other notability guideline. User:Let'srun 19:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore fails WP:GNG. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Summerslam2022 (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing found for this individual. Was active in the early internet era, but I still can't find sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Timur9008 (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jones Radio Networks#Satellite formats. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adult rock and roll

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

A complete lack of secondary coverage for this defunct radio format. Fails WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could also find no secondary sourcing for this format. Although there were small hits on books for this format, and a few who referred to "adult rock and roll" as somewhat of a genre of rock music, there was virtually no coverage of both subjects beyond small mentions. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary sourcing or significant coverage. The Night Watch (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jones Radio Networks as WP:ATD-R —siro χ o 22:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jones Radio Networks#Satellite formats as an ATD; this was not a specific format, but an automated radio network which was mainly used for time-filler or for stations which didn't have the financial means to (or didn't want to bother) programming music playlists, which indeed hit N back when it was created, but with consolidation over the years, it's now a part of Cumulus's Westwood One and has been completely depreciated for generic personality-driven syndicated shows. The listener never heard the name "adult rock and roll network" on the air (much less any mention of a network), but genericized DJ filler between songs that was heard nationally, and the average listener would not even know who programmed it unless they looked up the DJs online, which was intentional by Jones Radio. Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine. I can't see much else beyond what's given for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punk (Sirius)

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

No WP:SIGCOV present for this defunct satellite radio station. Let'srun (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, Television, Canada, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels, where it is mentioned; this is the logical alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable Sirius XM channels (if not associated with another notable parent entity). Its listing there isn't really much less than what's in this article, which is just as well given the lack of separate notability. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels per rationale of WCQuidditch. A sensible alternative to deletion. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis Arthur

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

Please see WP:PARTIAL. None of the entries on this disambiguation page are actually known as "Tennis Arthur". gnu 57 17:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Tennis, and Disambiguations. gnu 57 17:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing a crossword, and a question was; "Arthur in the International Tennis Hall of Fame", so imagine someone else with the same question, so that's why I created it. Hamtrane (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's valid, but I'm not sure we'd need disambiguation page for it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICT might help inform this, because this page is somewhat like crossword dictionary entry. For more search-oriented lookups like this we'd tend to rely on search results, which, when this page is deleted, will do quite well: [4]. —siro χ o 22:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should add a delete with my comment. —siro χ o 03:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - completely unnecessary --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary disambiguation. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a list masquerading as a dab page, but List of tennis players named Arthur doesn't make the cut either per WP:SALAT: too narrow a criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not an actual list of things known as "Tennis Arthur", so not a valid disambiguation page. BD2412 T 14:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would a redirect to International Tennis Hall of Fame be more in the question?Hamtrane (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, disambuguation pages and redirects are not intended to capture random keyword searches on a topic. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shudder at the thought of the redirect Tennis Bunny. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Miss Ecuador. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ecuador 2001

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

No sources for the annual event, only sources in the ELs section from 2002 or beyond, (note a Geocities fansite EL was removed from some of the nominated articles). This will be bundled with events back to ~~1973~~ 1969 that were constructed identically with inappropriate ELs and no references. Many of them were created by/for the Mrdhimas sockfarm, which was engaged in undeclared paid editing for pageants according to the Mrdhimas sockpuppet investigation. Some of the others were created by User:PageantsECU who was blocked for obvious contest promotion. They should all be redirected to the series, Miss Ecuador. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the additional articles (bundling) for the reasons noted above; same sockfarm constructed them with same bad sourcing template. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm curious: if these are definitively attached to the sockfarm, why wasn't this WP:SPEEDYed? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2023 (☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)UTC)[reply]
- There are some additional requirements for WP:G5, beyond merely having been created by a sock, and this bundled list didn’t seem to fit them. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Ecuador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Ecuador 1969

Adding one more that was missed on the original set of nominations. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all: Subjects don't meet WP:GNG as they lack the needed sourcing. User:Let'srun 14:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Earl Belmore. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Lowry-Corry, 8th Earl Belmore

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

Nobleman from Northern Ireland, fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject. BEFORE turned up only passing mentions, like here, or there, but nothing arising to SIGCOV levels. The title of Earl Belmore may be notable, but the 8th Earl isn't. Pilaz (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Ireland, England, and Northern Ireland. Pilaz (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earl Belmore as ATD per nom's BEFORE. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Sin Tour

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

Fails WP:NTOUR as well as having been tagged for needing additional citations for more than five years.

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason of failing WP:NTOUR:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Music. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, mixed.
1. Keep No Rest for the Wicked Tour -- Here's a couple sources with SIGCOV [5][6].
2. update, keep per Oaktree Redirect The Ultimate Sin Tour (with {{r with possibilities}} template) to Ozzy Osbourne which mentions the tour. This will also almost certainly meet WP:NTOUR with some research, but given the pre-digital era it might take some time to pull the sources together. Willing to change to keep if source are found.

—siro χ o 20:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so we can see a few more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to have been controversial at the time [7], [8], parents worried about morality and the rest of it. Article needs updating. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prime News (American TV program)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 15:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's hard to imagine this program getting any substantial coverage separate from that of HLN proper. Note that I cannot really suggest a redirect to HLN (TV network), given the relatively-generic title; as shown in some images in this gallery, big sister network CNN had its own largely-unrelated Prime News program in the 1980s and 1990s. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable news program, all hits are for Amazon Prime day. Oaktree b (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of current mayors in Oklahoma

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

Per past discussions on things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors in Alberta and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of council leaders in the United Kingdom, we have a longstanding consensus to avoid "current incumbency" lists like this due to maintainability problems.
Obviously it would be major national news if the mayors of Oklahoma City or Tulsa were to resign from office or die next month, so a lot of Wikipedia editors would be on top of it quite promptly in the event of a change -- but these types of lists consistently reflect a pattern of missing the boat when it comes to the smaller towns toward the bottom of the list, because we're much more likely to not notice the news of a small-town mayoral change and thus not update the list in a timely manner.
A list such as List of mayors of the 50 largest cities in the United States can be constrained to a defined set of the most nationally prominent big-city mayors who pass or are likely to pass NPOL -- but they're discouraged at the state level, because for the smaller towns and cities we simply can't guarantee the ability to stay on top of any updates necessary to keep the list up to date. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Oklahoma. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of mostly non-notable small-town politicians, failing WP:NPOL and WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. Elshad (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made this article believing that it adheres to Wikipedia policies regarding lists and notability. A lot of these politicians have large constituency sizes (the top 10 of Oklahoma cities for example). I think pruning the article and only keeping the top ten largest cities in Oklahoma would be a better choice then deletion.--Trey Wainman (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Narrowing the list to something like top 10 or over 50,000 residents may help narrow the scope of the list. Also, the updating/maintenance issue can be helped by including the last and next election date so editors can tell when it needs updating. Some form of this page is probably both notable and maintainable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - we don't traditionally host these sorts of things for currency reasons. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Holiday Park

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

This article is about a resort in Switzerland with a hotel (125 rooms), 85 holiday apartments and four restaurants. The company was founded in 1996, employs 260 people and has revenues of about 24 Million Swiss Francs (2019), that's 27 Mio. USD. So what? Lack of notability, non-descript architecture. This article was paid for by the company itself ([Special:Contributions/Baba-yaga-cat sock puppet]), and just deleted on the German language Wikipedia by me. Wikipedia is no web space for advertising. But maybe rules are different here, so please decide. Minderbinder (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, coverage is all in German, was hoping for some French... I can't tell, it looks routine (they named a new director), Swiss-German sources are not in my notability wheelhouse. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syspro

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

I was going to prod2 this, but it seems like this was previously prodded before. May as well get this before AFD instead of waiting for the prod to be declined in 4 days.

Reason given was: Non-notable software company. Only sources provided are routine mentions and/or self-published. No independent sigcov to establish notability. (proposed by Jdcooper)

I substantially agree with the prod rationale, almost all of the coverage I found were from press releases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete per my original rationale. Thanks @Alpha3031: and apologies for my oversight. Jdcooper (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tons of coverage in the trade press. It also got reviewed and compared to other systems in Forbes [9] (which explicitly says that payment doesn't affect the review) and here [10] where they make a big deal of being objective. Whether that sort of coverage makes the product notable, or the company or neither, I leave to others unless I find more sources. Park3r (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The Forbes article is marketing bumpf and Forbes has a disclaimer at the bottom that it is solely the opinion of the author - who isn't an expert on ERP systems or computing in general and is a freelance writer (among other things). If you're going to quote a disclaimer on Forbes (payment doesn't affect review, etc) at least be thorough enough to find all the disclaimers. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that aren't just marketing/PR any meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric G. Phillips

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

The article contains only primary or affiliated sources; I looked for additional references and found one profile in the Santa Barbara Independent. gnu 57 13:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, California, and Virginia. gnu 57 13:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puffy language, reads like an extended LinkedIn post. He's involved with a theatre, is about all I can find that's not businesscruft news. Non-notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. Multiple refs appear to be listings of boards of local organizations, including one that is now a 404 and one that he's not even listed on anymore. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Willson

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

Article about a journalist, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about them in third-party sources independent of themselves -- but six of the seven footnotes here are primary sources (e.g. staff profiles and press releases self-published by her own employers or other organizations that aren't media outlets, content on the self-published website of one of her personal colleagues) that aren't support for notability at all, and there's only one piece of GNG-worthy piece of coverage about her being shown, which isn't enough.
Even the Sidney Award is not an instant notability lock in and of itself: it would be a valid notability claim in an article that was sourced properly, but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to override a lack of GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The award is a monthly award, a $500 gift and a cartoon drawn by the New Yorker guy. Seems orders of magnitude less than Pulitzer, they give out at least 12 a year... Rest is confirmation that she works in her field, that's all I find. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article looks to be one among a larger batch created by the same ed over the last few days for journalists who have won this Sydney Award. The award itself was recently judged as not notable and its article is awaiting being folded into the article on the foundation that sponsors it. May want to consider those other journalists for AfD, as well. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COPD26

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

an unnotable and obscure "discontinued record". ltbdl (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Non-notable database entry, nothing else found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article fails GNC spectacularly. Cinadon36 17:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Friberg (speed skater)

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

sports person stub with no claim to notability. ltbdl (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sweden. ltbdl (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WYAM-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This might pass the GNG. I've at least shorn it of all the advertising crud. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say stations are a special circumstances of Rabbitears being good enough to showcase notability. Sure, 90 something percent of people in the US have never heard of WYAM, but the same exact thing can be said of all stations where (with the exception of large markets like Chicago) the only content would invariably be the the infobox, station history, list of staff, etc. Wikipedia's coverage of stations overall is moreso a database so if this got deleted, most station articles might as well be deleted too.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Taghavi

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. The article is strung together with press releases and business profiles that merely mention Taghavi, but none provide significant coverage of Taghavi. Notability is not inherited and I couldn't immediately find any sources with in-depth coverage. IceWelder [✉] 10:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. IceWelder [✉] 10:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial mentions strung together, nothing terribly out of the ordinary, working business person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Compact disc. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5.1 Music Disc

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

Only one citation in article and it's a primary source; Googling doesn't produce anything that can be used as citations (i.e. only user-generated stuff like forums & Discogs pop up) Theknine2 (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Products, and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to somewhere like compact disc. Worth mentioning as a certain kind of music disc, but there's neither the sourcing or content to support this spin out. (Not really worth merging, as the article is largely unsourced tech jargon only of interest to hardcore audiofiles.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to compact disc. A quick search yields little evidence that a 5.1 is notable in any regard independent to the broader topic. As Sergecross73 points out, it's worthy of coverage at that article but an unsuitable merge candidate in its present state. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to compact disc. Nothing is present here or elsewhere that leads to this subject getting to WP:GNG, under any of the names it is referred to. User:Let'srun 17:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excelsior Convent School

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

Declined prod citing sources on talk page. These sources are all directory listings and not reliable. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all I can find are social media, the school's own website and database sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Puestel

AfDs for this article:

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

Little to no third party coverage as far as I can tell. Unclear if any of the projects are notable re: WP:MUSICBIO/PRODUCER. KH-1 (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a heavily promotional mess sourced to a Myspace bio of all things. I could no secondary coverage of Puestel at all from a search, just a few of his profiles on websites were you download music as well as this article which he clearly wrote himself. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for PROMO. No sourcing found, only download links. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Kunapaneni

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

Fails basic notability. All the sources are directly from the Twitter of the voice actor, and the preliminary notability search shows no independent third party coverage of the actor. It looks like a page made by a fan. Jaguarnik (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of any RS. Sourcebot has a wall of red, with one teeny tiny source in green. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination Worldiswide (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Urwa tul-Wusqa

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

Full of POV. No references that would support keeping. Just seems like an advertisement - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 08:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 08:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GNG.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States state legislative elections#Alabama. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Swayne

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, especially given the very minimal news coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article nominated is Sylvia Swayne. Jaguarnik (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alabama. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in future elections, but the article is based on a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and run of the mill campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election always gets — and thus it is neither demonstrating nor sourcing a reason to treat her candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2024 if she wins a seat, but nothing stated or sourced here already makes her permanently notable now. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. Skynxnex (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect to 2024 United States state legislative elections#Alabama. News articles with headlines of "first" and "make history" do not indicate run-off-the mill coverage. Some of the news coverage is secondary, such as [11] and [12] and there is new coverage not yet referenced in the article, such as [13]. Even if she does not win the seat, she is the first openly transgender person to run for state office in Alabama, thus being significant and making history and the coverage satisfying WP:SIGCOV of WP:GNG. Raladic (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Redirect to 2024 United States state legislative elections#Alabama after the discussion. For now until she at least wins the Primary, it is probably WP:TOOSOON. Recommend a redirect for now to the elections article, until the actual main 2024 Alabama House of Representatives election article gets created, then it should probably redirect there or if she does end up winning the seat, then the redirect can be changed back to the article since it would then satisfy WP:NPOL and so if instead of deleting, we redirect, we don't lose the content for recreation, unless we move it to draft space. Raladic (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are an infinite amount of firsts in the world. Being the first person to do something does not automatically mean you satisfy WP:GNG. If it was that significant of a "first" then I would expect her to get in-depth coverage from national sources, but instead all she's gotten is some local publications and a couple Newsweek articles. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)

"First member of an underrepresented group to do a not-otherwise-notable thing in one specific region, when other members of that same group have already done the same thing before her in other regions" is not in and of itself a permanent notability pass. If she could claim to be the first transgender person ever to stand as a candidate for any political office in the entire United States, then we might be getting somewhere — but merely being the first in one state, when numerous other states have already had transgender candidates and even winners before her, isn't sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an arbitrary line to draw.

First member of an underrepresented group in a state that has a long history of suppressing underrepresented groups can in of itself be noteworthy, it doesn't have to be nationwide to be noteworthy.

The state of Alabama has a population bigger than almost 100 countries in the world, so if we use your criteria of a country as a function of "large population governed by a central governing body", there are plenty of those countries that are smaller that have never had a candidate. So, I believe it is just as noteworthy for a state (especially given the size and history of suppression of underrepresented groups), as it would be for a country. Raladic (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again: if this is such a notable first, where's the national coverage? Hell, if you're trying to argue that Alabama is more significant than 100 countries, I'd expect to see international coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that Alabama is more significant than 100 countries, I said it was just as populous, so please refrain from throwing around WP:STRAWMAN arguments.

I'm saying that there are no formal criteria by Wikipedia that says it has to be about a country and that Alabama is not just a small town, so even state news is quite a coverage, but despite that, the Newsweek articles are national coverage.

My point was, that such a first is in of itself notable, just like it was included in the List of LGBT firsts by year#2023 and helps contribute to reducing Wikipedia's systemic bias on Gender and LGBT Coverage. Raladic (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"State-level coverage is enough" is not a standard I have ever seen applied on Wikipedia. That sounds like a new invention by you. I agree that reducing the coverage bias is important, but we shouldn't do it by giving articles to non-notable people. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She has recieved coverage in Newsweek, which is national-level coverage: Alabama Transgender Candidate Reveals How She Can Win in Republican State and Alabama Could Make History With Transgender Candidate. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an acceptable source, it's mostly a clickbait site of iffy quality. If you had other sources as well, we could use it; it alone is not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to push back on the example given where you link to the List of LGBT firsts by year for 2023. All other first time candidates listed on said article either won their seat, or ran for a national-level office. The only candidate on that list who ran for an election on a lower level, and did not win, was the first openly gay person to run for any office in the United States. To me it appears questionable if she should be on that list.

If she wins, by all means build an article. It would be noteworthy and historic enough to warrant one at that point in time. Sheeredit3 (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Political candidates for office are not inherently notable if they only receive coverage for being a candidate, like she has. It's also written promotionally. We can redirect to the article for the race if one exists and cover her adequately there. SportingFlyer T·C 22:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete transgender person running for office, in the USA, isn't notable these days. If the person wins, we could build an article. This is just person xyz running for office. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why, exactly? How many transgender people have run for office? None in Alabama, until now. Alabama's first transgender political candidate at a time when Transgender rights in Alabama are restricted is, IMO, notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on sources, there are none outside the local area, indicating only local notability. Always keep a worldview when doing Wiki edits. Few if any mentions outside of the state, let alone the USA, don't really help the notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And let's move forward a bit, if the person doesn't win the election, what are they notable for, running for office? That's hardly notable. We'd need a ton of sourcing and long, extensive stories about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally, this would be a redirect, but there is no 2024 article for the AL House elections (yet). The article states that "Sylvia Swayne is an American politician." Candidates are not necessarily notable or not notable, but I do not believe Sylvia Swayne meets GNG or that Sylvia's candidacy will meet the type of test that candidates such as Christine O'Donnell, Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson), or Lar "America First" Daly have met through their candidacies. The citations and Google search results are entirely an instance in which this article is based on the same news story. The citations are entirely a candidacy announcement and a speaking gig. Finally, without assuming any bad faith, I am going to leave this essay here: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe.. Sylvia's candidacy will meet the type of tests that candidates such as Christine O'Donnell, Pro Life (Marvin Thomas Richardson), or Lar "America First" Daly have met through their candidacies... I'm sorry, what? What does that comparison have to do with this conversation? What are these "tests" for notability, exactly? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people are notable just for being political candidates, and it takes a lot more than routine local campaign coverage to demonstrate lasting notability. SportingFlyer T·C 12:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to the Gil Penalosa article, candidate for mayor than ran but didn't win. That's the level of coverage we'd need to see. This individual doesn't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And even that's not a great comparison: Penalosa had an article tried at least twice on the basis of his candidacies in elections per se, and got deleted or banished to draftspace both times — the article actually became keepable only when people started beefing up the sourcing to demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for his work as an urbanist prior to running for mayor. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean, the individual here hasn't done anything notable before running as a candidate. Penalosa had something notable to write about. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't my tests. They come from various policies and guidelines including, Wikipedia:Notability (people) (with a specific focus on people involved in single events) and WP:GNG. Additionally, POLOUTCOMES notes that with the exception for substantial non-local media coverage most articles about local candidates/political figures should be redirected to the article about the election itself or deleted. It is also informed by essays, that while not policy, serve to provide some level of guidance such as Wikipedia:Subjective importance.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Raladic's point: She is the "first member of an underrepresented group in a state that has a long history of suppressing underrepresented groups".. including the group that Swayne is a part of. She's the first openly transgender candidate in Alabama (a state with over 5 million inhabitants). As I stated above throughout the discussion, she is receiving national coverage (i.e. Newsweek) prior to the election taking place, which is more than most candidates of state legislatures, or even members of state legislatures, have. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek isn't a RS, sadly. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't recognize it as such: [[14]] Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this reliable sources link, thank you! This is a good resource to have. I did notice that it says that the consensus is to evaluate Newsweek articles post-2013 on a case-by-case basis, not that it is automatically unreliable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. I'm not sure the article in this case helps notability. If we had other, better sources from that list, I'd give it a pass... That's just my opinion. I'd rather use good sources than iffy sources for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The following excerpt from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians illustrates why this article should be deleted as of this time:

==== Candidates[edit] ====

Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates in the 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada. Note that such articles are still subject to the same content policies as any other article, and may not contain any unsourced biographical information that would not be acceptable in a separate article.
Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. They are not moved to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace a repository for campaign brochures (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siân Gwenllian.)

This is for state office, not national office, meaning notability will be further reduced. Should the candidate win, this article can be redrafted. Sheeredit3 (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is asserting presumptive notability, which we do not (yet) do here. This is very likely a booster page. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Booster page? I wanted to clarify that I am the user who wrote this article and I did not intend nor imply for it to be any kind of booster. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not questioning intentions. The observation is that the lede is asserting a notability (which doesn't exist) couched in terms of prominently announcing this person's gender identity. Others may differ here, but I don't even think the main source (a podcast) is admissible RS for the claim Swayne is a transgender woman.[15]. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

leaning Keep per WP:NPOL as a "local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage" and available statewide coverage, including the secondary commentary about the historic nature of her candidacy e.g. 1st transgender woman to run for Alabama House says cultural divide hurts all (AL.com, Aug. 7, 2023); Q&A with Sylvia Swayne, Alabama’s 1st transgender woman running for state office (AL.com, Aug. 16, 2023); this seems local: Sylvia Swayne runs to be first transgender member of Alabama House of Representatives (ABC31, Aug. 11, 2023). Other coverage with some limited biographical info includes Sylvia Swayne announces campaign for House District 55 (Alabama Political Reporter, Aug. 1, 2023). Beccaynr (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC) !vote struck per comment below Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that it's all the exact type of campaign related coverage we normally discount. I'm a strong advocate of redirecting this to the actual election and writing about her there, as per usual. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think these sources help show she is getting coverage that is distinct from the usual campaign-related coverage, because most campaigns are not reported as historic by multiple outlets; it is this secondary evaluation by the multiple sources, plus the depth of coverage in reliable sources that can help this article be developed in accordance with the WP:NPOL guideline that has me leaning keep. We have multiple reliable sources stating her candidacy is considered historic, so subjective opinions about whether this is true seem to carry less weight. There also seems to be nothing in the guideline that requires nationwide coverage or for her to be more than a local political figure, so I am thinking the article could be retained and revised based on available coverage and coverage that can reasonably be expected to continue. Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are an infinite amount of firsts in the world, we can't (and haven't) given a page to everyone who's the "first" to do something specific. Just because some local outlets used that "first" as a frame for their campaign coverage doesn't make it noteworthy. If it was such a notable first, it would be getting national coverage. This reminds me of Kojo Asamoa-Caesar, who received press coverage as the "first Ghanian-American to run for U.S Congress", but when a Wikipedia page was created for him, he was determined to be non-notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's distinct from usual campaign related coverage - it's really just coverage any candidate who has any chance of winning would receive in the local press. I think calling it historic is WP:SYNTH as well. It's not as if there's large opinion pieces on how historic it is, the AL.com article just states that she's the first in the area as a matter of fact, the Political Reporter only calls it historic because they quote a campaign press release. As an aside, we don't have an article on the first openly gay person to run for Alabama statewide office (he lost in the primary)... SportingFlyer T·C 21:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first AL.com source includes, "Swayne will be the first transgender woman to run for state office in Alabama. She embraces that history but said it will not define her campaign." ABC31 says "A woman who's making history as the first transgender to run for the Alabama House of Representatives." So both sources seem to note her candidacy as historic, and the Q&A source seems to include some substantive questions that could help develop a typical article for a political figure.

And we did have an article for Patricia Todd (first openly gay elected official in the state of Alabama) created before she was elected in November 2006 [15], for whatever WP:WAX is worth - the circumstances of each article and the available coverage are probably best assessed individually due to the variations that can exist. But yes, the Political Reporter source does not offer much beyond an endorsement from Patricia Todd and some basic biographical info and what the campaign says. Beccaynr (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did not include this in my initial vote, but I feel that for all the users mentioning historic candidacy, is Sylvia even on the ballot yet? It might just be too soon to make that determination.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the article more today and considered this discussion further, including this recently-launched candidacy appearing to be WP:TOOSOON, despite some available coverage about the historic nature of her campaign with some context; I have struck my !vote above, including because it was "leaning" at the outset. At this time, I think delete is appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, for now. That certainly could change in the near future.Jacona (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not satisfying NPOL is not a reason for deletion; NPOL elaborates presumptive *inclusionary* criteria, not satisfying NPOL does not produce exclusion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States state legislative elections#Alabama. This appears to be WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Herron

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

Fails WP:GNG Nzs9 (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that's a decent amount of significant coverage already in her article covering her going from Ireland to Australia to play Aussie Rules and I also found a story from July of this year [16] talking about her playing in Ireland recently. And there's a good number of more passing mentions and interviews that also exist. Skynxnex (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me, that's enough to meet GNG, though I could see why others would disagree.Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and it's not close. Coverage in The Irish Times and The42 is easily enough for GNG already – and that's just from sources already cited in the article before nomination. A quick search brings up further pieces from The Australian and AFL.com.au. Not convinced the nominator has done an adequate check for sources. – Teratix ₵ 08:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Tibetan and Tai peoples of Assam

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

Tiwa (Lalung), Rabha, Garo etc. groups belong to the Tibeto-Burman ethnic group, whereas it was falsely claimed by the user that they belong to the Tai-Ahom grouping.

This page was created by a user who has been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. Neither has any reference been added to support the claim that all the ethnic groups listed here belong to Tai-Ahom. He is pushing his own narrative here. Thus, the article should be deleted after a discussion. Saurabh^{Talk} 04:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Assam. Saurabh^{Talk} 04:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with a side-order of WP:GNG. I don't see support for the article's claims in the cited WP:RSs, and its conclusions do not 'jive' with those of strong RSs in related articles. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD A7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Khalil

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

Spam, Fails WP:GNG WP:NAUTHOR. Possible A7 candidate. Sources such as Hamariweb appears to be blog, while others are books written by the author. Maliner (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. I concur with Spartaz's reverted closure. UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Vaz

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

Anthony Vaz

This stub biography of a sportsperson, by Lugnuts, has only one reference, which is a database entry. It therefore does not satisfy Olympic notability or sports notability as they are in 2023.

Draftify to Draft:Anthony Vaz (field hockey), as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Kenya. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, fails WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Would support applying the WP:LUGSTUBS criteria for its restoration to mainspace. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -@Robert McClenon - @Lancepark and @Zyxw were also involved in the editing of this article. Is there a reason why Lugnuts was singled out here considering that he does not WP:OWN the article? KatoKungLee (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lancepark's edits, Zyxw's edit. They both appear to have been WP:GNOMING. BilledMammal (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to User:KatoKungLee - I use Twinkle, and it notifies the originator of the article. It doesn't give me the choice of also notifying the gnomes. I know that I could notify them manually, and I saw that they had been gnomes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find him 7 mentions of him. #6 is a bio on him. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Pinging BeanieFan11 to see if he has any other sources on him. Considering he was a 3-time Olympian, a flag bearer at the 1956 Olympics for Kenya, from 1950's Kenya where we have few to no resources and considering this was Kenya's first year active at the Olympics, I do think more sources are out there.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those contains WP:SIGCOV. Even the article that you describe as a bio on him contains no independent coverage beyond Anthony Vaz is a dark, handsome lad of 27 who comes from Kenya, an English province in East Africa, some thousands of miles away from Rome. BilledMammal (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They also talked about his background in the article. I don't think you need me to quote it. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, this is the reason I dislike so much the current notability guidelines relating to athletes. We've got here someone who was clearly a star of their time and one of the best athletes in their country, given that he was selected as the country's Olympic captain and was their flag bearer in their inaugural appearance. There are no available Kenyan newspapers from the time to help locate sources - none - our list gives a paywalled one from a different time period and one that doesn't work. The British Newspaper Archive has an article from Pakistan that actually looks like it'd be potential SIGCOV ("Pensketches of Kenyan Hockey: ... ANTHONY VAZ: (30): Rightfull-back. Played for Kenya in 1956 Olympic Games and since that date played representative"). This inaccessible source mentions him several times, as does this and several others on Google Books. This would be a massive shame to delete in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- User:BeanieFan11 - I think that I agree with you about the guidelines, and that is why I ask to have these athletes draftified. I find and nominate stubs for deletion if they have the same name as a newly submitted draft, and do not appear to satisfy the current guidelines. If they do satisfy the current guidelines, I disambiguate the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Robert McClenon: I see, its just that draftifying old athletic articles today basically puts them in a graveyard, as almost no one sees them, let alone improves them, and in 99%+ of the cases they get deleted. I could probably perform a decent expansion of this in a few days if you seeing it improved helps. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment to User:BeanieFan11 - Well, getting the article to satisfy general notability would satisfy the Heymann criterion if done within 5 days, and if done within 6 months would get the draft accepted. I know that most of these drafts are ignored, but draftification at least gives an editor who participates in the AFD and wants to restore the article six months rather than seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Keeping or Draftifying.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note I closed this without seeing Seraphimblade's relist. I have therefore undone my actions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above. Aintabli (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gasp! (TV series)

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

Non-notable television series, no sources provided and failure of WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the only source is the author's own website. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I cannot find anything that would constitute a reliable, independent source covering this show. Searching notable Australian news outlets (e.g. ABC, 9News, the SMH, and The Age) specifically returns nothing. Even the article Terry Denton does not seem to have the sort of reliable, independent sourcing to warrant its existence under WP:BASIC, but I would have to do a more in-depth search to confirm or deny that. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechnician27, @Wizzleworker tried to improve the article, can you please review their edits? Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TechGeek105. I checked the article's sources, and they are now a potentially marginally notable magazine (IF), a random paragraph with no authorial credit from LicenseGlobal, a Facebook post, and the original citation from terrydenton.com. This still in no way even remotely meets notability guidelines. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to add more references to that article, @TheTechnician27. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference from TV Tonight, about the show coming to the Nine Network (https://tvtonight.com.au/2011/02/airdate-gasp.html), and another reference from TV Tonight about the show coming to ABC3 (https://tvtonight.com.au/2011/08/airdate-gasp-2.html). Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added both references into the article, as well as adding a reference from the ABC iview website. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a lot of editing has occurred since this article's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable, independent source additions seem to now be enough for this article to meet WP:GNG and show that the series is notable. Happily888 (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the newly added source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Exceptional third relist as we just need someone to comment on the sources added
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per reliable sources . See in particular the if.com.au reference. @Spartaz

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The show is notable and the sources provided above meet WP:RS. FlutterDash344 (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan ballad

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

Sources are extremely poor, list is entirely unsourced (and nonsense), article only really discusses Balkan ballads in a Eurovision context (which doesn't pass WP:GNG) and there's few other sources on Balkan ballads in general so not notable. Toffeenix (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffeenix (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete Balkan ballads are, well, ballads. Mangoe (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources do not seem to support most of what is written in the article, and the article is mostly about Eurovision, which is a very tiny segment of what this type of music is supposed to be. --Tone 19:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article talks about certain types of ballads. If Britannica wrote about it, why would it not be relevant ? Боки ✉ 00:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not available, so it is hard to say if the source is about the same thing that the article is about. Britannica is almost certainly not discussing Eurovision entries. Tone 12:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A link to the Britannica source was added since then. The Britannica mentions "balkan ballads" in passing, and focuses mostly on ballads in general. Not enough for notability. Also, "uses ethnic instrumentation" and "in modern times uses Western-inspired instrumentation" can describe so many music genres and doesn't make the Balkan variety special.Jaguarnik (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Britannica entry is literally a single line that is not even a full sentence. There's no evidence that "Balkan ballads" outside a topic of just ballads in general pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palak Tiwari

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

Fail WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR AShiv1212 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added third-party reliable sources for actress who has actress in multiple films like Kisi Ka Bhai Kisi Ki Jaan.--Curvasingh (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You introduced a reference that states she became a brand ambassador. That does not make you notable. Somebody taking a job. They're is no coverage that isn't very early career PR. scope_creep^Talk 03:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AShiv1212 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. The references are exceedingly poor, constituting mostly PR. scope_creep^Talk 03:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails in WP:NACTOR Worldiswide (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) JTZegers (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Jaya

AfDs for this article:

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

Even with nine citations, this article is marred by an apparent lack of notability and is riddled with too many resolved issues to list. Fails WP:BIO. JTZegers (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Religion, Hinduism, Florida, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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